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

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 30 November 2012 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365CD21F88BB for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:29:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QyIyFlVEhpkr for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1446F21F8894 for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:29:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d3so862551lah.31 for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:29:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xQ1Zn4rNllAqLrNllSJw0qmEGoWJ4OYPbxzy34D8iiM=; b=V/IaJGg+pVI+OPdzqPb3Ejjzqi3vo37S3MDWRetULs2MmWUz+Oya2I3ox+2FEp70qv YorVh73Wn5G+Jmg+Cohr0Yw+/G7y44M7xRse2Noe3i1hEGxk0K4AJbkni21LhUH4l1Bk QsKBTlO0l8vMKPF6QBMNxmf1y0eh3N4MpCF3JuxKdB45elX5pysKPYrjtRIx/So9UI4u xOxsSHAWzKcZvB7/2dd3pSCpdnInngg0z1VzNTsHl83MscpdGFeY1HrvmSXbYeWLH4aJ 7N6arb8Dq5u5TI7AZIJs9yJmzv2o2q7HV9mEQKvhObc1xOMhK0sn7CA1C9Ep7nmLNLpT suAw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id gj1mr2789255lab.49.1354318151048; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:29:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:29:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:29:10 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MMDo172DFC0b2yl_ytoLF61aues
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:29:13 -0000

>> 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.  That's a fine thing to do when it's appropriate,
and some combination of the working group proponents, the community as
a whole, and the IESG decides what's appropriate.  For chartering, the
IESG has the final word.

> Right.  Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged.

I find that to be an interesting interpretation.  I don't see it that way.

I do, indeed, mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal
steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts.  We have a common
custom, which many -- probably most -- working groups use.  As Wes
noted, it's not used in a consistent way, exactly because it is NOT a
formal process in any sense.

We have a very well defined mechanism (a formal process) for making it
a formal process, and we haven't done so.  Wes noted that he'd like
to; perhaps you'd like to join him in that.  The formal process, as
you know, would be to submit an Internet Draft with a target status of
BCP, and either find an AD to sponsor it as an individual submission
or make a BoF request and try to get a working group chartered for it.

Only when that document becomes an approved BCP will we actually have
formal steps.  Until then, we have a custom that's usually, but not
always, followed.