From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Thread-Topic: review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
Thread-Index: AQHPE5I77i18p0U40EKrtcrrUBqywpqJdMeAgAAFB4A=
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:07:13 +0000
Message-ID: <C9AFAB87-CE3F-46C5-A603-10B1394DDB6D@cisco.com>
References: <8D28F665-CDF8-4FAA-869E-CA5EF6E673D2@cisco.com>
 <52D950F9.7050909@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <52D950F9.7050909@bbiw.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <238B074326EB154CA7E6D36379B624BC@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-crocker-id-adoption.all@tools.ietf.org"
 <draft-crocker-id-adoption.all@tools.ietf.org>,
 "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
Precedence: list

On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
 wrote:
>=20

Dave,

> Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Well, the scope of the document did expand, over iterations.  At this poi=
nt I'm probably too deep in the details to have a good sense of a good titl=
e, 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 wit=
h me.
>=20
> Adrian?
>=20
>=20
>> - 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.
>=20
> 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 n=
ot 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.)

;-) ok, I'll go through it again (probably not today as the week is coming =
to an end for me)

>> 1.1:
>>=20
>> - 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)"
>=20
> How's this (adding after <wgname>):
>=20
> 1.1 What is a Working Group Draft?
>=20
> Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as Inte=
rnet Drafts (I-D) [ID-Info]. Working groups use this mechanism for producin=
g their official output, per Section 7.2 of [RFC2418] and Section 6.3 of [T=
ao]. 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:
>=20
> draft-ietf-<wgname>-...
>=20
> Individual submissions are drafts being created and pursued outside of a =
working group, although a working group might choose to adopt the draft lat=
er, as discussed below. Anyone is free to create an individual submission a=
t any time. Such documents are typically distinguished through the use of t=
he author's last name, in the style of:
>=20
> draft-<lastname>-...
>=20
> 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.

perfect!

>=20
>=20
>=20
>> 2.1:
>>=20
>> - 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.
>=20
> What is the specific change you want?

between bullit 2 and 3 add:

- verify that the draft submitters are aware that they transfer change cont=
rol for the document to the WG (and the IETF)

(not trying to be picky, but this particular point I have seen go wrong oft=
en, leading to rubber stamp discussions etc)

>=20
>=20
>> 2.2:
>>=20
>> - 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.
>=20
> I think this varies quite a bit, and suggest we be careful about saying a=
nything that sounds like a requirement for this, especially since there is =
a long-standing desire to /reduce/ AD load, not increase it.
>=20
> In formal terms, I believe the AD is /not/ part of the draft adoption pro=
cess.  They can interact about anything in the wg, of course, but noting an=
y specific like this could too easily confuse folk that it is necessary.

Ehm, yes I understand what you are saying. But I think the AD has a formal =
role in approving a recharter, right?
=20
>=20
>=20
>> - 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.)
>=20
> So add to Criteria:
>=20
>   o Is the draft likely to be completed in a timely manner?
>=20
> That's more generic than you've suggested, but I figure the whole point o=
f such a bullet is simply to get folk to think about the going-forward prag=
matics.

yes, better than my suggestion

>=20
>=20
>> - "is a simple modification to the charter feasible and warranted",
>> how about large modifications, are they ever feasible and warranted?
>=20
> I think the first bullet implies this issue well enough:
>=20
>   o Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a documen=
t?
>=20
> We need to be careful that the list isn't too picky with details.

ok, agreed

>> - "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.
>=20
>   Concerning the draft, the position of the working group chairs has
>   no special authority, except to assess working group consensus.
>=20

ack

>=20
>=20
>> 3:
>>=20
>> - 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."
>>=20
>> whereas tend to =3D>> whereas authors tend to
>=20
> ack. tnx.
>=20

Klaas