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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 28 November 2012 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 7447C21F891B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:00:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XnTpR5ZqDXsU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9706C21F890A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qASG0VJS025643; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:00:32 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qASG0T5q025551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:00:29 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'George, Wes'" <wesley.george@twcable.com>, "'John Leslie'" <john@jlc.net>, "'Barry Leiba'" <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
Subject: RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:00:27 -0000
Message-ID: <01a701cdcd81$7d365380$77a2fa80$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJh66a/LNfCMvKWuQdcHBWtm9X2zpbXK2aQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'IETF discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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 16:00:40 -0000

I led the discussion in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic.
Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> George, Wes
> Sent: 28 November 2012 15:36
> To: John Leslie; Barry Leiba
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the
> mailing lists")
> 
> > 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.