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

Dave Crocker <> Sat, 01 December 2012 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850DE21E809E for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:07:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifevQ8GAJ7vw for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5252E21E8039 for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB1J7PLL002350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:07:25 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:07:17 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
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 <>
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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 ( []); Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:07:35 -0000

On 11/30/2012 3:29 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> 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.
> ...
>> Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or
>> there is explicit wg approval.
> Indeed: we always have the option of having the charter limit
> management options.

Barry, I think you are trying to make a very different point from the 
one I am trying to make.

I think you are trying to assert that there is flexibility while I am 
trying to assert that there is common practice.  These are not mutually 
exclusive points.

My point about a formal process having emerged is that a chair/wg 
wanting to adopt a document has a well-established set of common 
practice.  It's not well (or at all) documented, but it exists in how 
working groups typically do things.

I was not trying to comment on the degree to which that process is 
mandated.  I acknowledge that fully documenting common practice, to make 
it "official" formal process, must combine both lines of concern.

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking