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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 69CAF21F8BB0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:03:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 yGheAdYCUuIf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D5A21F885F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qATL3UCS001814; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:03:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1354223016; bh=zSWtYhv06gGT1u36fDWiMoDJP2wItle8MDfVxzYRADU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=UtANp/5qJnKmMmqKBxC0mIAQymBgFxP+kBhO2zdfGY20TDWwiucDdXbcPkx6SmWTb iQO4VL/xxocqXJOxf88hLDSQLPmZ2HRdRGDygUDiJWRc/Dtfufkr6kMxu4XXBpXaVb nT4/xwsZDijiOIVw6R3bC+PDsks5dBLCYLXugF2Q=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1354223016; i=@resistor.net; bh=zSWtYhv06gGT1u36fDWiMoDJP2wItle8MDfVxzYRADU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=J1jV2KNrosa6ONs+/oz8jl9j3czpNH5/LMdpnCHhHPZDmgccUP0SCNIKYvnG9Az8T HzmiPvxDFFs1e0APs1r4Ps2D1eZr4QEdznb5jtGbiD3Wo2DSnXyHmutnkZgaIdMa44 /9n49dV20329yBOgdlaNX9RdA94ekJvh3KYd1b0Y=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121129105444.0b8d3400@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:03:59 -0800
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
In-Reply-To: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230338A657EC@PRVPEXVS15.corp .twcable.com>
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <CALaySJLT=6RTZahqB1LO_Aw=7sAMiyrXK=xacwrBgLieZhqeDw@mail.gmail.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230338A657EC@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:03:39 -0000

At 08:24 29-11-2012, George, Wes wrote:
>adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide 
>procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG 
>adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics 
>in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. There are 
>plenty of WGs that have specific ways that they like to handle 
>document submission, reviews, and requests for agenda time. It might 
>be useful to have that all in one place so that people can know 
>what's expected of them.

There is a wiki for WG Chairs.  Melinda Shore posted some comments on 
this list several months ago.  She followed up and added material to 
the wiki [1].  There must be over a hundred WG Chairs.  Only a 
handful of them have bothered to add material to the wiki.

>[WEG] Barry, I respectfully disagree. The whole point I'm making 
>here (and Geoff underscored nicely) is that it's currently too 
>variable and too reliant on a small group of individual volunteers 
>implementing it correctly. When things are not documented, we

The problem which Geoff Huston commented about might have occurred in 
a working group within the Routing Area.

According to some RFC:

   "All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
    and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
    a session starts."

If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions 
during the week a meeting is held.  The following working groups 
posted drafts during that period:

  DHC
  BMWG
  MPLS
  TSVWG
  MMUSIC
  CODEC
  6MAN
  MANET
  HIP
  APPSAWG
  P2PSIP
  SAVI
  DIME
  DNSOP
  OAUTH
  IDR
  SIPREC
  SIPCORE
  L2VPN
  FECFRAME
  MILE
  EAI
  STRAW
  PRECIS
  XMPP
  JOSE
  PCP
  URNBIS
  LISP
  NFSV4
  MBONED
  SIPCLF
  OPSEC
  TRILL
  CCAMP
  MIF
  REPUTE
  ECRIT
  PAWS

At 11:45 29-11-2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
box.  I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
>could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.

Yes.  Section 6.5.1 of a document, which everyone claims to have read 
and understood, spells out what people should do if they want to protest.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75826.html