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

Melinda Shore <> Thu, 29 November 2012 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0196A21F8BDC for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:45:48 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ov0aWbu63DJN for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CB121F8BF5 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id uo1so10516758pbc.31 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:45:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HyBxZbFrCPhYuJl95kv6CBg4lAJEwliPMb2oXllkYzs=; b=MyWuTKtGRqUz6ql9QWX2FIxTo+enFOIekYU0EppQodmJu9ZK0hp4WahZ3brB4mhquM Dch9ErCFw3Sv39dBIPgii13h/AYu55dGjGm+fWn8dziZRXbuqEWS+xIJHZr4CQ0rLcnX x1dd4Onj3Ikewtc352IIQOVnaLuEQqG3w92aDbTvTvGQXpTi99cojnukwl4QOyDlN+Hx nt0JZF7Qyxg5Gf7B7Wn6/pjrRbkaDNEHdQrFjhXgX9a6CoOYLB3n4f62wpkvMTUNx1UY 4uPtsG2rLgQFJbGax0jA9PZepGTp5KWzBsTog/OC7kuuxT+7y9cUEIUokV5juq6vfYLD CXGg==
Received: by with SMTP id ge5mr71056259pbc.1.1354218347258; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id ai8sm1684972pbd.14.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:45:44 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:45:48 -0000

On 11/29/12 10:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with
> opinions as well.  Yes, we could change our documentation to
> explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice.
> But I'll caution you against trying to do that in general: we have a
> million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left
> to management choice.  Trying to find all of those and explicitly say
> so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of
> value in the end.  In general, we specify what we want to specify, and
> what's left is up to judgment and management.

Hear, hear (and I feel pretty strongly about this).  There are
correction mechanisms if someone feels that a process has gone
off the rails and I prefer to rely on those than trying to
micromanage IETF process.  Right now it seems to be the case
that keeping much unspecified and having strong chairs is a better
use of limited resources than trying to shove everything into a
box.  I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.