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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Wed, 28 November 2012 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7447C21F891B for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:00:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XnTpR5ZqDXsU for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9706C21F890A for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qASG0VJS025643; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:00:32 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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" <>
To: "'George, Wes'" <>, "'John Leslie'" <>, "'Barry Leiba'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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$77a2fa80$>
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' <>
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: 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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] 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: [] 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,
> 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
> the WGs that I'm actively involved in:
> 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to
> on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a
> 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.
> 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
> it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion
> 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
> 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
> the matter.
> Wes George
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> 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
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or
> taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error,
> notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy
> of this E-mail and any printout.