Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 17 January 2014 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE231AE12D; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcskBeLTe0Qg; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B36C1AE10B; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0HFnMR8024934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:26 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:13 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:49:42 -0000


Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

On 1/17/2014 6:41 AM, Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng) wrote:
> - I think the title "Creating an IETF Working Group Draft" is a
> misnomer, at least it led me to believe that it would be a guide for
> creating a draft, i.e. what template, what sections, how to use the
> tools etc. Something like "the lifecycle of an IETF WG Draft" seems
> more appropriate.

Well, the scope of the document did expand, over iterations.  At this 
point I'm probably too deep in the details to have a good sense of a 
good title, though I always appreciate efforts at better titles.  If 
folks think the document really is broad enough to cover wg doc 
lifecycle, that's fine with me.


> - Since this is a document that aims to document the actual way the
> WG drafts are handled I wonder whether you should mention that
> reality is not always what is put on paper. For example whereas
> change control lies with the WG rather then the author, in reality
> the author often has a strong influence on what is being published.

I thought there were enough qualifiers in the document, to this point. 
So please suggest specific addition/changes.  Sometimes too much of that 
kind of commentary can overload a doc to the point of distraction, but 
that's not likely for this case.  So you point and suggest text and I'll 
add it.  (Adrian has also been easy-going about such things with the draft.)

> 1.1:
> - since in section 5.1 the individual submissions pops up, it may
> make sense to add a  note here that says something like: "NOTE: in
> addition to WG drafts each individual can also independently submit a
> draft (that may at a later stage either or not be adopted by a WG)"

How's this (adding after <wgname>):

1.1 What is a Working Group Draft?

Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as 
Internet Drafts (I-D) [ID-Info]. Working groups use this mechanism for 
producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of [RFC2418] and 
Section 6.3 of [Tao]. The convention for identifying an I-D formally 
under the ownership of a working group is by the inclusion of "ietf" in 
the second field of the I-D filename and the working group name in the 
third field, per Section 7 of [ID-Guidelines]. That is:


Individual submissions are drafts being created and pursued outside of a 
working group, although a working group might choose to adopt the draft 
later, as discussed below. Anyone is free to create an individual 
submission at any time. Such documents are typically distinguished 
through the use of the author's last name, in the style of:


Responsibility for direct revision of a working group I-D is assigned to 
its editors and authors. See Section 3 for discussion about their 
selection and role.

> 2.1:
> - I usually (especially with relative newcomers) explicitly make the
> authors of a submitted draft aware of the fact that they give up
> change control for their love baby to the WG.

What is the specific change you want?

> 2.2:
> - Also in other sections, but especially when it is about adopting a
> draft and/or determining whether it fits in the charter there is
> often quite a bit of involvement from the AD's, I think you need to
> at least mention the role of the AD wrt the WG process.

I think this varies quite a bit, and suggest we be careful about saying 
anything that sounds like a requirement for this, especially since there 
is a long-standing desire to /reduce/ AD load, not increase it.

In formal terms, I believe the AD is /not/ part of the draft adoption 
process.  They can interact about anything in the wg, of course, but 
noting any specific like this could too easily confuse folk that it is 

> - I usually also try to judge if we have a reasonable expectation of
> finishing up the to be adopted work (workload WG, research character
> etc.)

So add to Criteria:

    o Is the draft likely to be completed in a timely manner?

That's more generic than you've suggested, but I figure the whole point 
of such a bullet is simply to get folk to think about the going-forward 

> - "is a simple modification to the charter feasible and warranted",
> how about large modifications, are they ever feasible and warranted?

I think the first bullet implies this issue well enough:

    o Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a 

We need to be careful that the list isn't too picky with details.

> - "Group, not chairs:   Concerning the draft, the position of the
> working group chairs has no special authority.", I think that is only
> true wrt technical content, the chair does have special authority to
> make sure that WG consensus is properly represented, that due process
> is followed etc.

    Concerning the draft, the position of the working group chairs has
    no special authority, except to assess working group consensus.

> 3:
> - Typo in the sentence: "A simplistic rule of thumb is that editors
> tend to do the mechanics of incorporating working group detail,
> whereas tend to create the detail, subject to working group
> approval."
> whereas tend to =>> whereas authors tend to

ack. tnx.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking