Hi,
Good work. Here are a few thoughts after a first reading.
- We seem not to have a definition of what a WG I-D is, although we know how to recognize a WG I-D because of the naming convention. So, if I am not mistaken the phrase
Working Group drafts are documents that are subject to IETF Working
Group revision control.
in section 1.1 introduces such a definition. Is everybody happy with this?
- I am lacking from the criteria in 2.2 the stability of the technical solution (as per WG consensus). In my mind this is in current practice the principal specific difference between individual submission I-Ds and WG I-Ds - the fact that the I-D makes a clear (it may be drafty but yet clear) statement about what the technical solution is.
- I less like the following:
* If not already in scope, is a simple modification to the
charter feasible and warranted?
Without being extremely strict on the process aspect, I believe that WGs should not work on items that are not chartered, and even less adopt WG I-Ds on non-chartered items. If they feel that something is missing from the charter they can ask the ADs for a charter update, or for adding milestones, we have today at hand light processes which can lead to fast incremental additions to charters, and if the addition is more than incremental than it should go through a proper rechartering process.
- * What is the position of the working group chairs, concerning
the draft?
[[editor note: I am not sure this is relevant. Indeed is
might be specifically not relevant. /a]]
Not relevant IMO.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:33 PM
> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: When to adopt a WG I-D
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
> considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are
> targeted for publication.
>
> We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
> associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as
> Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative
> definition of process) and would like your input.
>
> What is not clear?
> What have we got wrong?
> How should we resolve the remaining editor notes?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> (per pro Dave)
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
>