Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>         So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for 
> the Internet
>just to have a structured discussion?

Yes.

I'll comment on draft-crocker-id-adoption-01.

Section 1 is fine.  I'll suggest not amending the BCP (see the last 
round of RFCs about IPR as an example).

In Section 1.1:

   "and Section 8.3 of [RFC4677]"

I suggest using the web page ( http://www.ietf.org/tao.html ).

In Section 2.1:

   "No formal specification for working group 'adoption' of a draft
    exists;"

Procedures may be a better fit.

   "*  What is the position of the working group chairs, concerning
       the draft?"

I suggest removing this from basic considerations to keep matters easy.

   "REMINDER:   Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is
       owned by the working group and can be changed however the working
       group decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working
       group charter.  It is a responsibility of the working group chairs
       to ensure that document authors make modifications in accord with
       working group rough consensus."

 From the BCP:

   "The Document Editor is responsible for ensuring that the contents
    of the document accurately reflect the decisions that have been
    made by the working group."

I suggest rephrasing the last sentence reminder as:

   It is a responsibility of the document authors to make modifications in
   accord with working group rough consensus.

In Section 2.2:

  "and Section 5.2 of [RFC4677]"

See above comment about the Tao.

   "Thus, when it is not completely obvious what the opinion of the
    working group is, working group chairs should poll the working group
    to find out."

I'll highlight part of a comment [1] from Geoff Huston:

   'such expressions of disinterest in adopting the draft by some
    strange twist of logic are portrayed to point to "interest in
    discussing the document"'

If you use a poll it ends up as a 'yes/no'.  The problem zone is when 
there are valid arguments on both sides.  To put it simply there can 
always be a good reason not to adopt a draft (see thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04922.html ).

You could treat the decision of adoption as secondary and have 
opinions about the "problem to be solved" as the primary intent.  You 
could then use the following:

   Is there strong working group support to work on the draft?

In my humble opinion it is important to tell the group up-front what 
is being decided.  I cannot think of text to suggest.

One of the problems is that there is an assumption that the text 
being adopted has consensus.  This leads to discussions about what 
text must be changed for the wg-00 version to be acceptable.  The 
adoption turns into a review of the draft.  There is ample time to 
produce changes as the WG will be working on the draft if it adopts it.

In Section 2.3 "Choosing Editors".

In Section 4:

   "I can't find an explicit description of Individual vs. Working
    group draft.  Some pages/docs imply the distinction, but not
    define it."

The Last Call is longer (see 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html ).  It may 
be easier to drop Section 4 as the draft discusses about "IETF 
Working Group Draft".

Regards,
-sm

P.S. An I-D encourages the author to structure what he/she would like 
to communicate.

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76053.html