Re: Last Call: <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> (Creating an IETF Working Group Draft) to Informational RFC

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:14 AM, The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Creating an IETF Working Group Draft'
>   <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2014-01-31. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    The productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as
>    mandated by the working group's charter.  When a working group is
>    ready to develop a particular document, the most common mechanism is
>    for it to "adopt" an existing document as a starting point.  The
>    document that a working group adopts and then develops further is
>    based on initial input at varying levels of maturity.  An initial
>    working group draft might be a document already in wide use, or it
>    might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it
>    might represent any level of maturity in between.  This document
>    discusses how a working group typically handles the formal documents
>    that it targets for publication.
>

I think this generally looks good, especially given SM's comments and
Dave's replies.  A few other minor points:

The process for adoption described in Section 2.1 is obsolete, as I
understand it.  I believe the current process is to have the
authors/editors submit the -00 version to the tracker, and the tracker will
block publication until a WG co-chair approves.  I also believe the
"replaced-by" step is now available via the tracker to WG chairs, so
there's no need to contact the secretariat.

The document needs a spell check ("idividual", for example).

Along the lines of the above: What do people think about documents that
describe how the tools work, other than the ones that explicitly define the
tools?  If the datatracker evolves in the near future, the tools-specific
remarks of this document could become obsolete.  Might it be better to talk
about tools-specific processes more in the abstract?

That's all that jumped out at me.

-MSK