Re: I-D Action: draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]