On 6/3/2013 1:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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:
...
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".
ack.
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.
Times change. It's now a requirement:
"If the document is accepted as a working
group document, then it will have the draft-ietf-<wg acronym> I-D
filename and will be announced on the working group mailing list by
the IETF Secretariat. "
-- http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
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.
I think what I wrote doesn't mean what you took from it, but of course
it's worth rewording, to avoid that possibility.
And to broaden its scope a bit, perhaps:
Note that one way of formulating the first version of a working
group draft is for the group to commission a design team, or even for
the design team to self-organize and offer its output for working group
consideration.
* 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.
Yeah. Wording is off. Meant what you suggest, not literally what was
written. Will modify accordingly.
* 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.)
moved to the next list, of stuff that's inappropriate...
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.
mumble. yeah.
but i hope we don't spend too much energy on this topic, given how rare
it is.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net