Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 30 November 2012 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 8C80721F8585 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 UmGKGJ6tVq2f for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F4A21F8543 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-190-125.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.190.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAUG6MXw015295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:23 -0800
Message-ID: <50B8D979.1010203@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:17 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.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> <CALaySJLT=6RTZahqB1LO_Aw=7sAMiyrXK=xacwrBgLieZhqeDw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLT=6RTZahqB1LO_Aw=7sAMiyrXK=xacwrBgLieZhqeDw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:06:33 -0000
On 11/28/2012 7:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Let's start with a basic point and work from there: > There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. There is flexibility in the process that has developed, but it's become quite formal. The first shakey steps were controlling assignment of "draft-<wgname>" roughly 20 years ago and it has evolved from there. Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. > There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version > of a WG document is formed. Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged. The next part of your note summarizes a couple of common starting points for drafts. On 11/29/2012 11:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented > policy I call a management choice. There certainly are parts of wg management that are left to chair discretion. However the IETF also likes to use squishy language like "management choice" to avoid being disciplined in its formal processes. We are constantly afraid of edge conditions, and use that fear as an excuse for being inconsistent in the handling of typical cases. In the current discussion, I think there needs to be an essential distinction: For example, choosing editors is /formally/ a management choice. Approval of drafts is not. I think the essential point is the difference between 'what' and 'how'. The IETF has unusual flexibility in the 'how', and often leaves the choices to management... but implicitly based on acceptance of the working group. In very specific circumstances, such as selecting editors, the freedom of management choice is permitted for the 'what'. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- 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