Re: Status of this memo

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 27 April 2021 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 089283A13AA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1yHt3IC94Vkc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936273A13A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcb12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.203.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FV6P54QbLzyXN; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:17:45 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <2c48c55c-fd37-6ced-e025-707eb145a27b@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:17:39 +0200
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 641233059.702683-2fb92393c4f0e388f3480f4b4eab4168
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D1F890C-1BC3-4E19-85C3-EEA522577275@tzi.org>
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <2c48c55c-fd37-6ced-e025-707eb145a27b@nokia.com>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SF4djd0bXLoyQiAOWU4klMfKcTE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:17:54 -0000

On 2021-04-27, at 18:06, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
>> But yes, working drafts do reflect WG consensus, and they have formal standing as such.
> At which point in time to do they reflect WG consensus, according to you?

I do believe different WGs handle this in different ways.

Some WGs have a formal consensus-based process that must be run before the WG documents can be updated.  In these, the statement is pretty much true, except that the WG may not have measured consensus yet on what further steps are needed before the document is ready for publication.

Some WGs give the editors (authors) of the WG document some leeway to move the document forward based on their perception of WG direction.  This is where Section 6.3 of RFC 2418 comes in (note that it says “reflect the decisions of the WG” and does not talk about “consensus").  This is usually more productive in smaller WGs that do not have a large queue of ready-made changes (pull requests) but require the document author to actually do some of the work creating those.

I think Keith is recollecting some experience with WGs where the chairs used the WG document process to run the show without much regard to the WG’s opinions.  In that case, I’d say: get new chairs!  We don’t need to make the process capable of coping with this abuse.

Grüße, Carsten