Hi,
My main positive comment is that it's a good idea to document guidelines
in this area, and that (viewed as guidelines) I largely agree with
the draft.
My main negative comment is that although the draft says it's not a
formal process document, its language in many places belies that.
For example:
> 2. Adoption Process
>
>
> 2.1. Formal Steps
>
>
> To adopt a new working group document, the chairs need to:
would be better phrased as:
2. Adoption Guidelines
2.1. Typical Steps
To adopt a new working group document, the chairs often:
I'd suggest a careful pass through the text, removing instances
of words like "process", "formal" and "need", and emphasising words
like "guideline" and "typical" and "might".
Now some minor comments:
> The convention for
> identifying an I-D formally under the ownership of a working group is
> by the inclusion of "ietf" in the second field of the I-D filename
> and the working group name in the third field,
It's a useful convention but *not* a requirement afaik.
> Note
> that from time to time a working group will form a design team to
> produce the first version of a working group draft.
I think that's slightly wrong. A design team draft is *not*
automatically a WG draft. I think this is more accurate:
Note
that from time to time a working group will form a design team to
produce the first version of a document that may be adopted as
a working group draft.
That's an important difference - we've seen cases where design teams
falsely believed that they had been delegated authority by the WG.
> * Is there strong working group support for the draft?
I think that's going a bit far. Actually a WG might adopt
a draft because there is support for the *topic* but not for
the details of the draft as it stands. Indeed, one objective of
adopting a draft is so that the WG as a whole obtains control
of the contents - so that they can change it.
> * 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]]
Actually I'd go the other way: the WG chairs' job at that point is to
judge the WG's opinion of the draft, not their own opinion. (At least
once, as a WG chair, I had to declare adoption of a draft to which
both I and my co-chair were strongly opposed.)
> 5.1. Individual I-Ds Under WG Care
...
OK, but there are in fact four possible outcomes for such a draft
1. As you describe;
2. The document proceeds as an individual submission to the IESG
without continued WG discussion;
3. The document proceeds as an Independent Submission to the RFC Editor;
4. The document is abandoned.
Regards
Brian