Re: Last Call: <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> (Creating an IETF Working Group Draft) to Informational RFC

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

 



Hi Dave, Adrian,
At 07:14 03-01-2014, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Creating an IETF Working Group Draft'
  <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

Thanks for writing this document. Over a year ago there was a discussion on the a working group mailing list about the (WG) adoption of a draft. It highlighted that a significant number of participants do not share the same view of what they are being asked when there is a call for adoption of a draft. The lack of documentation, whether formal or informal, makes it difficult for someone new to understand what is being asked. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the documentation should be in a Wiki or a RFC.

From Section 1.2:

  "A core premise of IETF working groups is that the working group has
   final authority over the content of its documents, within the
   constraints of the working group charter.  No individual has special
   authority for the content."

This can be interpreted in different ways. It has been stated that the document editor is responsible for ensuring that a draft accurately reflects the decisions that have been made by the working group. The above text can be read as meaning that the document editor does not have any authority over the editorial changes. An alternative would be to drop the "no individual ..." sentence.

In Section 3:

  "NOTE:    The distinction between an 'author' and an 'editor' is, at
      best, subjective.  A simplistic rule of thumb is that editors tend
      to do the mechanics of incorporating working group detail, whereas
      tend to create the detail, subject to working group approval."

The word "authors" may be missing before "whereas tend ...".

In Section 4:

  "Absent charter restrictions, a working group is free to create new
   documents."

Such decisions can be controversial. It is stated (in another document) that a charter is a contract between a working group and the IETF to perform a set of tasks. As an example, a charter might not mention that the working group can work on standardizing X. The working group Chair posts a message about the intent to adopt a draft about standardizing X. It might not be clear to some participants that the working group intended to take on such work as that task was not mentioned in the charter. To say it differently, a person may consider the new document as something minimal where the administrative overhead is not worth the effort; someone else might consider that he or she has not been given a fair chance to submit a proposal (see competing draft discussed in Section 5.2).

In Section 4:

  "It is not required that all drafts start as the effort of an idividual."

There is a typo for "individual".

In Section 5:

  "If the working group has already adopted an I-D on a specific
   topic, the posting of a new individual I-D on the same topic
   could be seen as an attack on the working group processes or
   decisions.  However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put
   new ideas into concrete form and into the public domain for
   consideration and discussion."

As a nit the draft is not in the public domain. That term is sometimes read as "no one owns or controls the material in any way". The quoted text mentions that posting a new (individual) draft can be seen as an attack but it is a good way to put ideas in concrete form. It is like saying doing X is good but if a person does X the person will look bad. It is not clear what the guide to common practice is.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy




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