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 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD44421F8B08 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:38:58 -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 5J3fmc3HMriT for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C7221F8AE9 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z20so3810797dae.31 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:38:55 -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=OUX3u22C7EeiZyEML9NrenUGUKhgT2zZTFgafo9d/YQ=; b=sw0qo3QjT/M+NhTEky0sAOiw1y4ysz7nwrDhz4V6izawz+WFf2m64Q/fEMQfQBJBrA lKt1jjj8EnDVPQrf0NYH/eoYdrAz1S9nsujavsqkHr8AAJ4XWWHfIQSXMZ7wsivqR7C8 /h9dfz5N7WmwKatzkhFXHcPPMhj5DhqZv3a1aTPPLUhYZRm4vZ5DZhyj+tZTAbm8wHfi 1ox8oEwzxyUhpWwpPUqSQdju82VQGK8bgwPRATBBziaNDXXqERPUwaVoIliaRQqYWCQF mVzWMvHl+fANUPvRsSuAspJ8dQ/Eril6hSL0j68+kfRLCUuB47vJVt7sMJG0JiTIIckV CVBQ==
Received: by with SMTP id be9mr289857pbd.116.1354232335400; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id x2sm1799487paw.8.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:38:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:38:52 -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 23:38:58 -0000

On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that
> *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should
> undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are
> currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion
> and inconsistency that has been created by something that is
> unspecified and asking "should we specify?"

I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or
why it's a problem.  I've seen some stuff around working
group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not
sure that I'd identify those as a "problem," per se, or that
they would be done better with yet another process document.

Lo, those many years ago I co-chaired (with Avri Doria) the
"problem" working group.  It was a very bad experience, and
I think left me convinced that dorking around with formalizing
process stuff should absolutely not be done unless someone's
identified a specific problem that interferes with getting
documents out.  Process we just don't happen to like is not
a problem.