RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

"George, Wes" <> Fri, 30 November 2012 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBBB21F8A7C for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:09:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.567, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9OH9o2qorekd for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFE721F8A60 for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:09:34 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,191,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="480535192"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 30 Nov 2012 09:09:32 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:09:33 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Melinda Shore <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:09:49 -0500
Subject: RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Thread-Topic: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Thread-Index: Ac3OisbYfc3A2i4/SE+KKgZKyH92JwAc5IpQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:09:35 -0000

> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Melinda Shore
> I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a
> problem.  I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that
> I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a
> "problem," per se, or that they would be done better with yet another
> process document.
[WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle and maturity is the "right" time to adopt it as a WG document, and whether it is appropriate to discuss an individual document in a WG at any length without adopting it. It seemed odd to me that there would be this much confusion on the matter, and I provided several examples of different philosophies that I have observed when it comes to handling this question. The response I got back indicated that WG adoption of drafts isn't really "a thing" as far as the official documentation of document lifecycle is concerned, which made me wonder if perhaps we do as much WG adoption of drafts as we do mainly out of inertia, either people doing it because that's how they've seen others do it in the past, or doing it because they assume it's part of the documented process, rather than for any real reason. I'm not a big fan of doing things for no reason, so the ensuing discussion was intended to tease this out a bit to see whether we should have some clearer guidelines around WG draft adoption, better education on the reasoning behind it, or whether maybe we should stop doing it. Is it the largest problem facing the IETF? Not by a long shot. But it seemed worth a little discussion, at least to me.

> Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem.
[WEG] process we don't happen to like because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time is very much a problem. But I didn't bring this up because I didn't like the process, I brought it up because I was seeking a little clarity on the underlying reasons we use the process (at least partially to improve my own knowledge as a WG chair and draft author). Thus far that clarity has still not presented itself.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.