Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

On one level, the meaning of adoption is not clearly written down. 
therefore I can not claim you are wrong.
However, in my experience in many roles at the IETF, your description 
("We adopt documents soe we can put them on the agenda") is not what I 
have seen or done.

We often put individual documents on the agenda.

As I understand it, we adopt documents in a WG when
1) The WG wants to work on the problem; and
2) The WG agrees that the given document is a good starting point for 
the work.

No, it is not the same as WG last call.  There is no goal that the 
document be perfect.  But it is has to be good enough.  As I explained 
to some folks in one WG, if the document does not have enough clarity 
that I understand what the direction is, then no, I do not see how the 
WG can adopt it.  (The authors added the needed clarity.  I believe the 
document will be adopted.)

A working group is not obliged to accept any old text, whether it agrees 
with it or not, as a WG adopted document.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/12/2020 8:51 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > That is a really odd construction Brian.  If the authors are not willing to
>      > make the change, then if the document is to be adopted with a change the
>      > working group is asking for, the WG will have to find a new set of
>      > editors.
> 
> I'm okay with this.
> We don't add consensus building authors/editors often enough.
> 
>      > While again technically allowed, it is not what authors usually mean when
>      > they ask a working group to adopt their document.
> 
>      > But focusing on the fact that technically the document is not yet in the WGs
>      > hands seems to miss the point of the process.  Which is for the IETF to end
>      > up with a document the IETF supports.  So I find your arguments confusing.
> 
> We adopt documents so that we can put them on the agenda.  That's all.
> 
> Over 15+ years, we have confused adoption with WGLC.  It has to stop.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>