Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts

One more thing before we write a draft. A thread elsewhere reminded me that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.2 covers some of this ground. It's Informational so doesn't have normative effect. But is it already enough?

Regards
   Brian

On 19-May-20 00:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> These are helpful observations from Brian and Fernando. 
> 
> I have thoughts. Inline. 
> 
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:54 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, Brian,
> 
>     [Apologies for breaking the "threading" feature, since I just subscribed
>     to the list, and hence I'm not using the "Reply" feature of my email
>     client, but rather composing a new message]
> 
>     In-line....
>     >
>     > While looking into something recently, I noticed that we don't seem
>     > to have any documented process for document adoption by WGs, or even
>     > general guidelines, although the tracker and the I-D submission
>     > mechanism support this change of state. It isn't described in RFC2418
>     > or in the Tao, or anywhere else that I could find. Yet it's become
>     > quite important in the life of most WGs, and the decision to adopt a
>     > draft is of considerable importance.
>     >
>     > Is this a topic that deserves some work? (No, I haven't written a
>     > draft, and don't want to unless there is interest.)
> 
>     Yes. It is indeed very important, and it does deserve work. I would
>     encourage work on the topic.
> 
>     Questions such a document should address include:
> 
>     1) What are the conditions, if any, necessary for a wg call for adoption
>     to be performed on a document?
> 
>     2) If/when those conditions are met, what are reasonable timeframe
>     expectations for the consensus call to be performed?
> 
>     3) The previous two bullets would also imply that if the conditions in
>     #1 have been met, and the time in #2 has elapsed, failure to perform a
>     consensus call should be considered an action (by omission) subject to
>     the procedures in RFC2026.
> 
> 
> I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step for drafts I am working on. 
> 
> I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new participants. 
> 
> I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list.
> 
> I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases. 
> 
> As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over when we write such text. 
> 
> And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. This probably isn't a special case that needs to be mentioned in a document ("in addition to everything else that you can appeal, we remind you that you can appeal this, too"). 
> 
> Do The Right Thing, of course. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Spencer
>  
> 
>     You can count on me for reviewing a draft (if eventually there's any),
>     or proposing text if that'd be of value.
> 
>     Thanks!
> 
>     Cheers,
>     -- 
>     Fernando Gont
>     SI6 Networks
>     e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>
>     PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Gendispatch mailing list
>     Gendispatch@ietf.org <mailto:Gendispatch@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> 