Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

["Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]>]

>>Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.
>
>Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was
>under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though
>not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated.

I did not say discussion was prohibited.  That "supposed" is as in "supposedly".

Calls for adoption are to indicate interest in working on a topic.  The intent of a call for adoption is not consensus on the content.  Review of the content is not the purpose of a call for adoption.

I know I've said something like this before in calls for adoption.  This should not be a surprise.

--Sandy
________________________________________
From: Andy Newton [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow
Cc: Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

On 11/8/12 9:57 AM, "Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.

Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was
under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though
not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated.

>Are you sure you are not thinking of wglc, where consensus on the content
>is needed?

I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between WGLC and wg document
acceptance. What I am uncertain about is the criteria for working group
document acceptance in SIDR.

>And I said it generated "a first storm of discussion", not "interest".

So, is "a fire storm of discussion" the threshold for document acceptance?
If a document fails to generate such a storm, will it not be accepted?
Since ROVER did generate a storm, will you be accepting it as a working
group document? Again, I'm trying to determine the criteria upon which the
chairs accept a document as a working group item. I do find "a fire storm
of discussion" to be a unique threshold.

I'll note that you did say, "Nothing like actively working on a topic to
demonstrate interest in working on the topic." Hence my confusion.

-andy