Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft

Abdussalam Baryun <> Wed, 05 December 2012 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D4321F8973 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:59:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBfkCrOBknu2 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737FE21F8860 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l1so7002257vba.27 for <>; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:59:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ePyAul6BGWKllaXIw4hqTNgiwu8MkP0WcpEGUzouoVM=; b=sPrXST10jnT+amBsIRD4mAS4a+/Ohc3RgX5m0iR3IciLeyiZIsTpp1wDMc6c5k87Rv KJYoaE/W1hmbYdlEAKYv7XMNEiJUKWkw3nR4FrcZdv4XMiZd5BDtYL+7SbOPdrGiwPvj YFQG+q7jyeRkXYmSg9J0lL0qdvP6oadpbi3R+2qQg0iqoQi1YhmmemTUNrgG6hh7COaC oLq9UMCuehZ0GsDNiv0JYnYl9vBMJSaUdGqn1xj6eTNgDe8XObn15l5oXPI5sRzt9l0H tqAwy7GMgeCChLOE9TPvqiroKXnuP0GZDHXRHeNDUh+USu8SPj/AtWZjdeM4e/xDsRO5 n+qQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id r5mr13245476vdw.25.1354715951916; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:59:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <051501cdd237$2959aef0$7c0d0cd0$>
References: <> <051501cdd237$2959aef0$7c0d0cd0$>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:59:11 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <>
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, 05 Dec 2012 13:59:13 -0000

Hi Adrian,

> Dave and I will include what is reasonable and seek a consensus that agrees
> with our motivation for writing the document.

I agree totally that only reasonable inputs to Internet Society SHOULD
go through, that is why I am participating, but I when I see no
reasonable input discussed, so I try to fix in IETF and ask to
clarify. Your info-draft is an important information document/input to
clarify the reasons of such managerial decisions in IETF. Always
consensus follow reasonable decisions, because if any participant
(including chairs and ADs) refuse a decision they SHOULD provide a
good reason announced, if they fail then I recommend they are just put
noise against science and engineering.

In general, *Any IETF input SHOULD have an announced/discussed
reason*. I posted before about this [1]. I suggest here that the draft
should make clear *what* drives our documents/decisions which I
beleive is the *knowledgable reasons, science, and engineering*.
Hiding the reason of such decision SHOULD not be a process in our IETF
organisation, if we follow its principles. I think few of processes in
IETF (if not many) still have some non clear announcements by
managers, editors, or by processors. When I finish my overview and
complaints/documents I will be more clear of such processes. However,
my initial specific input as below.

AB>Amend section 1.2>to working group chairs who are charged with
running the process:
AB>to> to working group chairs who are assigned to run the process:

AB>Adding Qs in section 1.2>

-Who is authorise by IETF to make decision in WG to adopt or refuse
such I-D. Should it be in an announce reason or without announcement,
or with no understood reason?

-If the I-D is out of scope of the WG charter, still could the WG adopt it?

- Is the WG charter important influence for the reasons of any
decision made regarding documents, or the market interests and WG
consensus are the main influencer?

- Is a WG chair or AD authorise to call to re-charter WG if the WG
refuses to adopt an I-D, or WGs have power to direct their input to
the IETF WG?

AB> Comments on 1.2> I don't think there is differences in adopt or
care or consideration of WG, if they are interested in such work they
will adopt it, and if they change their interest in future they can
refuse to submit it. The Chairs and ADs SHOULD not control such
decisions that the WG make [2]. If the WG don't get to a decision, the
Chairs and ADs SHOULD undersdtand the reasons and make them announced
and clear. IETF is an Engineering organisation, only good intelligent
engineering reason SHOULD maintain, and others SHOULD stop the noise
if no reason or value in such input. Therefore, only input with
known/documented reasons should progress [1][3].



On 12/4/12, Adrian Farrel <> wrote:
> Abdussalam,
> By all means send text or suggestions for edits.
> Dave and I will include what is reasonable and seek a consensus that agrees
> with
> our motivation for writing the document.
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Abdussalam Baryun
> Sent: 04 December 2012 13:33
> To:
> Cc: ietf
> Subject: Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for your work, please provide us with feedback while the process of
> editing. I was thinking to do something in the future, but thanks that you
> will
> do it.
> AB
> Folks, There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended
> to
> document common practice in the adoption of working group drafts:
> Title:   Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
> Status:
> Abstract:
>    The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as
>    mandated by the working group's charter.  Working groups develop
>    these documents based on initial input of 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 workiing
>    group, or it might represent any level of maturity in between.  This
>    document discusses the process of creating formal working group
>    drafts that are targeted for publication.
> Although it is not intended for a standards-track or bcp publication, it
> would
> be helpful to have discussion that moves the document to represent good
> agreement among the community.
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking