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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 18 May 2020 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772B23A0B45 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVZ72kAUoUwX for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD863A0B42 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m18so1202257ljo.5 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Obc6EPBwzxG9HLw4Rie+LaKYYO6YUL7pTBhIBVzmUf4=; b=cT8qSqWaKQrAgG7pYGglSRoXfldUQS16/FRjy8+PctpcyztWgRgtZi6IAkoTd38FOI UGTAJf2FpOucQub5UpuuEcjSQ6wdzi1g1BugBZPa42zB1X7lUu1+0vjzTZZ2UEBWykqK 0SpgteTsfiuxZ8dTkEv2KVsQzE16A8D72hfBLYMGTci+gXMzYMQftCZJv8BYokPwn94b j5e+uJhg0PKE3eSe7FLwV198zZtvfvaqe5YNfyiFXQrO/vGaGomJfkLNBScHUDGlzG55 glD13FSYv1xDGZDqDmgZXSBdwXIMMVModXaCAcUboVyGcha9VUzJoaXjRMAVKvTKnLgd GM8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Obc6EPBwzxG9HLw4Rie+LaKYYO6YUL7pTBhIBVzmUf4=; b=BkhWAfa74kwNge3kdj9YBrGg13qEWesXuRJzxFTO1NHg1paZoaaIe22g/fcKEYqxGm lTgY8HVy79JjmzZJblHNxcPCDuXKaDmSovSeQlb+FIXHUtMlnTicmpyX9gGSKSY0MEYx XkKN1K+XkkT1G7kYuVqyKIchaKpaDjC2xtbhKO3A1bHhSUddyOuZosOkJwG/HyxxdVEA 94CEmQkX5A9D+6sVzM22tLsprlgDcwc3Q13D9PtPBFpDwRP77WVmCjLiorLfaOba+ki3 L+SbkMUODOO3GdedT474jxXTnKBdQb3lZp7EPvYupfL2//eukhxI5T51ao8nhqpnuqCd Ow5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531A49hXxea35jYxP67s/kiXuvFxzw6SdoohWokVYGZlGcQN6SgN k1gNHCnoDPB7B+oLsT1NF9HwMidX+0Z3chggODs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/s4MCiHU417AKGWW7yPWnUm/2X+0teeptm8PYx1GOOrp+LcKzq2vXoDT2d12It35+6rqEDZIesgmgFFGrYI0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b3cd:: with SMTP id j13mr3590928lje.237.1589804372457; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c4bb2691-0c2e-8017-49fc-742d50e9b50f@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <c4bb2691-0c2e-8017-49fc-742d50e9b50f@si6networks.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 07:19:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-ds1bVarDo9dHYPerBbKqtmXg=JG7Qw2rZd0LBjP=W17g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, gendispatch@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1fc9f05a5eb2c60"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/lcfV_Uyern12Le1WPTIREekPZmY>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 12:19:37 -0000

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>
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
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>