Re: Status of this memo
Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Tue, 27 April 2021 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7ADF3A1EB3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1PkcyUYbAIIs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 092B13A1EB0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.116]) by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id bTAjlBNz8jtOrbU6olk6d4; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:15:02 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1619554502; bh=jyUfolBvY+8cl0JwnSqa7m45MbhWQLbnuXyWyd3CS2o=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=3YzIEBMBnbC1Pd8QIni4r/sU4QyyQA9O1/Q/35bUFe3gtRpmuWVlrbNkioAKbQseR w/auoA2+c1dmXqek1M15do7bzsirJH0ot9AYpxbJb/QUKL2x6bkO4jVbQUaATOYAjl wsJ01EzuXINNlIBc88+y2ya2T/6f0AuOmhnX9S1mXdT7Xf21vTCwAxMntTQh+SbVOw YxGMItfbK6p2HR6VsAoN9NdSFJa8FRiPsRZ2+mrd3dSsM8gD7cnkUW+KVGlbLsfpkU uYWdCvUyxA4Gxa/VyixaMiRLtesDo3EpuMt+EGYvLljaPfxHL78XZGc0TwKHjvpmVX gvUPd/g8fmXcQ==
Received: from [192.168.1.23] ([72.83.65.39]) by resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id bU6hl3B3FrzYmbU6ilUShr; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:15:00 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddvtddgudegkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefoihgthhgrvghlucfuthflohhhnhhsuceomhhsthhjohhhnhhssegtohhmtggrshhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefghfetveekgfehieeltdeltedvfedtgefhhfffieffhfduieegveeuhfevleevtdenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejvddrkeefrdeihedrfeelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurddvfegnpdhinhgvthepjedvrdekfedrieehrdefledpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehivghtfhesihgvthhfrdhorhhg
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <2c48c55c-fd37-6ced-e025-707eb145a27b@nokia.com> <CAA=duU1zuZ0ae_fK9vQkkRxFffgitLpATxwNcpfeftepBpY4=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0554cec1-71e7-72fd-1f4d-ca9977943425@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:14:56 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1zuZ0ae_fK9vQkkRxFffgitLpATxwNcpfeftepBpY4=w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E0FFAD4655C2AA477A2B03BB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sTH0qNSjs--9H-dWRTpJddoqEIo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:15:12 -0000
On 4/27/2021 2:08 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Martin, > > A draft reflects WG consensus when it has the name draft-ietf-wg-.... > (that's the definition of that name). Before then, it's just a > proposal from one or more individuals. > > It's the document editor and WG chair's jobs to make sure that WG > drafts do in fact reflect WG status. If a WG participant disagrees > with the editor and the chair that the draft reflects WG consensus, > they can appeal to an AD or the IESG as a whole. Content consensus of a draft document is judged formally only during WGLC. _*The consensus to rebrand the draft document to a WG draft is mere housekeeping that has no meaning outside of the WG*_ and does not necessarily affect the way the draft is edited and updated. WG drafts can and do fail of achieving WG content consensus. Any ID is just a proposal from one or more individuals, or a scratch pad for rough thoughts, or stupid pranks. Making them WG drafts does not change that. In my experience, the WG does NOT gain control of the document (and I have several worked examples in the DNSOP WG). In some cases, if it did, I might be more successful at getting fixes adopted against the author's will, but I think making the WG directly in control of the content of a given document prior to the WG submitting it for publication is generally a bad idea. IDs are working documents. Period. Regardless of whether they are named draft-person... draft-ietf... draft-wgname they have exactly the same standing within the community as any other ID. They are explicitly NOT standards, although they may be (draft) specifications. RFC7221 purports to give WG drafts a special status as WG owned, but I will note that that document is not a BCP and the IESG discussion (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7221/writeup/) was clear that 7221 does not create a new step in the process of publication of RFCs. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis/01/ might change things, but as of now, the above holds true. Later, Mike > > This is from RFC 2418: > > 6.3. Document Editor > > Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of > documents, that capture the results of the group's work. A working > group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor > for a particular document. 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. > > As a general practice, the Working Group Chair and Document Editor > positions are filled by different individuals to help ensure that the > resulting documents accurately reflect the consensus of the working > group and that all processes are followed. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:07 PM Martin Vigoureux > <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com <mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> wrote: > > Andy, > > quick question, if I may: > > Le 2021-04-27 à 17:06, Andrew G. Malis a écrit : > > Keith, > > > > I disagree. WGs have charters, which result in RFCs. During that > > process, they have consensus-based working drafts that are > refined to > > meet their charter goals. That's an "adopted" draft. But it > doesn't have > > to be based on a single individual draft, a working draft can be > the > > result of merging earlier individual drafts, or can even > originate as a > > WG draft without a preceding individual draft or drafts. But yes, > > working drafts do reflect WG consensus, and they have formal > standing as > > such. > At which point in time to do they reflect WG consensus, according > to you? > As examples to illustrate my ask: From day 1 or only at "Publication > Requested" time, or some other time, if any specific one? > > -m > > > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:27 AM Keith Moore > <moore@network-heretics.com <mailto:moore@network-heretics.com> > > <mailto:moore@network-heretics.com > <mailto:moore@network-heretics.com>>> wrote: > > > > On 4/27/21 10:17 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > >>> There was also a suggestion to add something to the > boilerplate text of individual I-Ds along the lines of "anyone can > submit an I-D; they have no formal standing until they are adopted > by a group in the IETF or IRTF". Would that provide additional > clarification? > >> Oh yes, PLEASE! > > > > concur. Except get rid of the "adopted" bit, because even > assuming > > that "adoption" of a draft by a WG is useful, it doesn't > imply any > > kind of broad support from the organization. Just say that the > > existence of a draft does not mean it has any formal > standing with > > IETF or any other organization. Documents with formal > standing in > > IETF are published as RFCs. > > > > Keith > > > > >
- Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Brim
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Bob Hinden
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- RE: Status of this memo Michael McBride
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Randy Presuhn
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Christian Huitema
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Status of this memo Simon Josefsson
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- RE: Status of this memo Gorman, Pierce
- Re: Status of this memo Nick Hilliard
- Re: Status of this memo tom petch
- Re: Status of this memo Warren Kumari
- Re: Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo S Moonesamy