Re: [v6ops] draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop WGLC

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

On 8/19/2013 2:25 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
>   wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't quite understand a WGLC on an individual submission. IMO, if it's a WG doc it needs to be opened up for substantial revision.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an individual submission, I think it strays too far into the purview of this WG to be permitted.
>>>>
>>>> I can see this both ways. v6ops has in the past sent individual documents this way when it agreed to them. My perspective is that the draft is largely agreed to and is close to being ready to move on. If we need to rework it in some way, we can have the reworked draft as a working group document. If we agree to it as it stands, I'm not sure I see the mechanical point.
>>>
>>> The fact that the draft doesn't happen to match the draft-ietf-v6ops naming
>>> convention is beside the point, and there is no formal stage called "WG
>>> adoption" in the IETF standards process. It's perfectly "legal" to bypass
>>> these two conventional steps.
>>
>> Like some of the content of the doc, IMO that is misleading at best. There is a well-understood convention for WG docs:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#naming
>>
>> I did assume that this isn't a WG doc because of its naming. IMO, a WG shouldn't endorse non-WG docs that are within its purview.
>
> As I note, this isn't the first time it has been done in this
> working group. That said, I'm not sure what a legal discussion of the
> naming of the draft has to do with the charter of the working group.

It doesn't. Is this a WG doc or not? If it isn't a WG doc, then I fail 
to see the rational of a WGLC (even though "legally" there's no such 
thing as a WGLC anyway).

> Here's my proposed resolution:
>
> (1) Joe, please go to whatever list it would be that naming
> guidelines are discussed ([e-mail]?) and get me some guidance.
> If I'm doing it wrong, let's have that discussion in the place that
> is chartered to have it, and correct me. With my blessing.

The naming conventions are here:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt

If you don't think that they're useful, you should take to whatever list 
is relevant.

Note that I'm not claiming whether it's 'legal' to have a non-WG doc 
without using those conventions; it's clearly misleading given this is 
the widely-accepted convention.

> (2) I have heard several comments to the effect that, specific
> issues  with the draft notwithstanding, they support the document itself. I can
> interpret that as support for adoption as a working group draft. General
> request to the working group: if you would like it adopted, please feel
> free to say so; if not, please say so. It would be a draft describing
> operational practice of some operators, and the logic behind that
> practice, but not recommending operational practice one way or the other.

I support having this be a WG doc.

Joe

> (3) Given that, at the end of the WGLC (which turns out to be a
> "please comment on the document" call), we know that we have some
> updates coming. We will ask the authors to update it per the commentary
> and resubmit as draft-ietf-v6ops-fragdrop.