Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Wed, 28 November 2012 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714EB21F8763 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:36:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VX1pgJ6cHFk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp187.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp187.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF79221F8760 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp28.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 20FF0E0ADE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:36:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp28.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id EA877E0AEC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:36:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <50B63D76.7050708@ogud.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:36:06 -0500
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:36:09 -0000
I guess that a better question is: "What are the expectations if a draft becomes an WG document?" The opinions ranges from: a) It is something that some members of the WG consider inside the scope of the charter. .... z) This is a contract that the IESG will bless this document! Not all working groups are the same, some work on brand new stuff and it makes sense to have competing ideas progress and then the WG makes a choice. In other cases the WG is just fixing something in an important deployed protocol thus stricter criteria makes sense. For a WG I have chaired we have two adoption paths: a) publish draft as draft-<editor>-<wg>---, discuss on WG mailing list once document is on track and people can make intelligent choice ask for adoption. b) Chairs based on discussion on lists or events, will "commission" a WG document to address a particular issue. This will be published as draft-ietf-<wg>- in version 00. Most of the time this is reserved for updated version of published RFC's. Olafur On 28/11/2012 10:36, George, Wes wrote: >> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of John Leslie >> >> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens >> _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great >> lull until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a >> few, seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The >> meeting time is taken up listing changes, most of which get no >> discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat... > > [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG > chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to > believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or > participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as > a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm > actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking > about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an > official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft > through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after > several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been > enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest > or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in > charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC > (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined > criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that > much of the real work gets done in the individual version > > It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the > WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD > preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and > those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a > disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced > that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice > to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps > we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to > look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives > guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious > about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the > available guidance on the matter. > > 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. > >
- When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF … George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Brian Trammell
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Barry Leiba
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Adrian Farrel
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Geoff Huston
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Barry Leiba
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Melinda Shore
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Randy Bush
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Adrian Farrel
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Geoff Huston
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Melinda Shore
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Dave Crocker
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Barry Leiba
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Dave Crocker
- Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Dave Crocker
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Dave Crocker
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft SM
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Randy Bush
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Randy Bush
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Randy Bush
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft (off-top… SM
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Russ Housley
- RE: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Adrian Farrel
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Dave Crocker
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Abdussalam Baryun