Skip to main content

Handling of Internet-Drafts by IETF Working Groups
draft-crocker-id-adoption-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-04-25
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-04-23
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-04-02
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-02-11
09 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-02-11
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-02-11
09 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-02-10
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2014-02-10
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-02-10
09 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-02-10
09 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-02-10
09 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-02-10
09 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-02-07
09 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-02-07
09 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-09.txt
2014-02-06
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-02-06
08 Dave Crocker IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-02-06
08 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-08.txt
2014-02-06
07 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]

Part 1 of my DISCUSS-DISCUSS will be solved by stressing in the document uses author and editor terms interchangeably (as agreed by Barry) …
[Ballot comment]

Part 1 of my DISCUSS-DISCUSS will be solved by stressing in the document uses author and editor terms interchangeably (as agreed by Barry)
Part 2 of my DISCUSS-DISCUSS can be moved to a COMMENT. ,

      Authors/editors are
      solely chosen by the chairs -- although the views of the working
      group should be considered -- and are subject to replacement for a
      variety of reasons, as the chairs see fit.

As discussed during the telechat,

        The chair assigns who is editing the document for the WG. 
        The chair can moved from authors to contributors.
        Do you disagree that could happened?
    Spencer: It has happened with BIS draft where the authors are no longer participating or dead.
    Barry: It has happened in merged drafts, IPR issues, problematic authors, and the cases that Spencer indicated.

That would be great those exceptional circumstances could be explained: merged drafts, IPR issues, authors no longer participating. And also that authors just don't disappear: they are moved to the contributors list.

When I read ...

      Authors/editors are solely chosen by the chairs

... it misses some nuance and newcomers might be mistaken.
2014-02-06
07 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-02-06
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-02-06
07 Benoît Claise
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS: No action is required from the authors at this point:

      Authors/editors are
      solely …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS: No action is required from the authors at this point:

      Authors/editors are
      solely chosen by the chairs -- although the views of the working
      group should be considered -- and are subject to replacement for a
      variety of reasons, as the chairs see fit.
2014-02-06
07 Benoît Claise Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Benoit Claise
2014-02-06
07 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
My "yes" isn't an opinion about Benoit's Discuss (I'm assuming we'll discuss it).

I can't express my admiration enough for Adrian and Dave …
[Ballot comment]
My "yes" isn't an opinion about Benoit's Discuss (I'm assuming we'll discuss it).

I can't express my admiration enough for Adrian and Dave taking this on. And I'm really trying to behave.

I haven't tried to compare this non-normative guidance to the non-normative guidance in the current WG Leadership tutorial. If no one else has, is it worth asking someone to do that?

I can't put my finger on why, but I'm more comfortable with "common" than with "typical". "Common" seems to be used most of the time in this draft, and feels even less normative.

In 1.1.  What is a Working Group Draft?

  Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
  Internet Drafts (I-D) [RFC2026], [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 common 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:

                          draft-ietf--...

  In contrast, 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:

                          draft--...

This discussion is accurate, but I wish it went one step farther, and pointed out that it's common for people to assume that draft--... drafts aren't working group drafts and pay less attention to them (it always broke Steve Coya's heart when we pointed out that people don't always look at the working group charter page to figure out which drafts are working group drafts).

This discussion doesn't include the draft--... convention mentioned in Section 5.1, and I encounter a bunch of folks who based what drafts they look at on that convention. That might also be worth mentioning.

Similarly, in 5.2.  WG Drafts Can become Individual Drafts

  A working group is not obligated to retain documents it has adopted.
  Sometimes working group efforts conclude that a draft is no longer
  appropriate for working group effort.  If a working group drops a
  draft then anyone is permitted to pursue it as an Individual or
  Independent Submission, subject to the document's existing copyright
  constraints.

it might also be worth mentioning that there's no requirement to change the draft filename back to the draft--... format if you pursue it, but people are likely to assume it's still a working group draft.

The discussion in 3.  Authors/Editors is about right. It might be helpful to observe that even this loose distinction between authors and editors has evolved over time.
2014-02-06
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-02-06
07 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-02-06
07 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-02-06
07 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-02-05
07 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
Section 4: I'd like to see somewhere (perhaps in the "For example" paragraph) something like:

  Conversely, even a deployed technology with a …
[Ballot comment]
Section 4: I'd like to see somewhere (perhaps in the "For example" paragraph) something like:

  Conversely, even a deployed technology with a solid base may be
  inappropriate to deploy at Internet scale, and while a document
  specifying such a technology might serve as a good starting point on
  which to base a new specification, undermining of the deployed base
  might be completely appropriate. It will all depend on the
  constraints of the charter and the analysis of the working group.

The current text seems to concentrate on one side of the issue.
2014-02-05
07 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-02-05
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-02-05
07 Richard Barnes
[Ballot comment]
"""
In formal terms, a working group raises and discusses each item of document content.  For difficult topics and/or difficult working group dynamics, …
[Ballot comment]
"""
In formal terms, a working group raises and discusses each item of document content.  For difficult topics and/or difficult working group dynamics, this is the required mode.
"""
This requirement is both inappropriate for an informational document and false in practice.

The first sentence of the Introduction and the Security Considerations sentence are both awkward grammatically.
2014-02-05
07 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-02-05
07 Dave Crocker IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-02-05
07 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-07.txt
2014-02-05
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-02-05
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-02-05
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
1) General: Is it also worth mentioning that upon adoption, the chair/author should send in a replaced by email so that folks can …
[Ballot comment]
1) General: Is it also worth mentioning that upon adoption, the chair/author should send in a replaced by email so that folks can track the progression of the draft from individual -> wg -> RFC.  This is especially important if there's IPR on the individual draft.

2) s2.1: Step 1: I think that we need a bit more on this topic.  The times I've dealt with giving over change control it's been a bit more formal - authors submit an individual draft explicitly stating they're giving change control.  That draft gets published as informational and then the WG takes over.  My point is reminding the authors might not be enough.

3) s2.1: I think the first typical step you've missed is that it's not normally the chairs who just come up with the idea that a draft should be adopted - they get lobbied by authors to actually make that call.  There's usually two ways this can be done - privately through an email to the WG chairs or publicly by just blasting it off to the list.  I think a lot of folks don't know this and different WGs prefer one or other or don't care.  This seems like an important step to note in s2.1.

4) s2.2: Are the 1st two bullets kind of the same thing?

5) s2.2: I guess I don't understand this one:

  Does the document provide an acceptable platform for continued
  effort by the working group?

6) s3: Worth mentioning that if the individual draft's authors aren't selected it would be nice if they were at a minimum list in the acknowledgements section or in the contributors section?

7) s5.1: I assume the following is code for the individual draft can be WGLCed without being submitted as a WG draft:

  Such documents can be handled according to normal, internal working
  group process management.

If so I'd be better to make that clear.  If not, I think we need to make it clear that there's no requirement that when a WG adopt the draft that it MUST be resubmitted named as a WG draft.
2014-02-05
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2014-02-04
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2014-02-04
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-02-04
06 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-02-04
06 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
A few comments:

"Other than for selection of document authors/editors, as discussed in
Section 3, working group decision-making about document management is
subject …
[Ballot comment]
A few comments:

"Other than for selection of document authors/editors, as discussed in
Section 3, working group decision-making about document management is
subject to normal IETF process rules. "

Surely the selection of chairs is "subject to normal IETF process rules"?

I think you mean to distinguish between the decision making of the
WG vs the decision making of the chairs on a document, but both
are subject to IETF rules, including appeals.

===

"Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a  document?

"Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?"

Isn't the former a subset of the latter?

===

Although the selection of authors/editors is the remit of the chairs
it might be worth noting that a wise chair will give regard to the
consensus of the WG on their suitability for the task.
2014-02-04
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2014-02-04
06 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

general: The title is too broad, it only covers adoption, and
not e.g. WGLC. I'd say s/Handing/Handling Adoption/ in the
title would be …
[Ballot comment]

general: The title is too broad, it only covers adoption, and
not e.g. WGLC. I'd say s/Handing/Handling Adoption/ in the
title would be better. (Apologies in advance that this
piles on from the secdir review;-)

1.1 - "with advancement for publication as an RFC requiring
rough consensus in the working group" might confuse a new IETF
WG participant into thinking that IETF LC is not needed for
advancement as an RFC. Maybe add a bit about IETF LC?

1.1 - I wonder would "In contrast, individual submissions..."
be clearer in the 3rd para just to help the reader know we're
done describing things usually named draft-ietf-wgname?

1.2 - The WG having "final authority" again sounds like it
ignores IETF LC. I think you mean that the WG and not the
authors/editors have control but as written it could be read to
imply more, which seems a pity.

4 - "Absent charter restrictions, a working group is free to
create new documents." That seems a bit broad, would it be
better to say "that sensibly fit withing the overall scope of
the WG's charter" or some such?

4 - "well-deployed market" I think you mean that the technology
is well-deployed, but you don't need any commercial products to
exist really. I'd say rephrasing to not say "market" would be
easy and better.

5.2 - "released to them" is odd - do you need to say that?
Maybe better to just say that if a WG drop a draft then anyone
can pick it up as an individual submission, subject to the
boilerplate copyright stuff.
2014-02-04
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-02-03
06 Robert Sparks Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks.
2014-02-03
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot discuss]
OLD:

      Authors serve at the
      pleasure of the working group chairs, and are subject to
    …
[Ballot discuss]
OLD:

      Authors serve at the
      pleasure of the working group chairs, and are subject to
      replacement for a variety of reasons.

NEW:

      Editors serve at the
      pleasure of the working group chairs, and are subject to
      replacement for a variety of reasons.

The authors are based on contributions.
2014-02-03
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.2
OLD:

      *  Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?

NEW:

      …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.2
OLD:

      *  Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?

NEW:

      *  If there is no charter milestone but the topic falls within the scope of the charter?

The charter is key, not the working group.

Section 2.2 REMINDER.
This is specifically important to note when an author bring his own (company) proprietary protocol as a WG document.
2014-02-03
06 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-02-03
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-02-03
06 Barry Leiba
1. Summary

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd and the responsible Area Director.

This document describes the typical processes that working groups use to
"adopt" …
1. Summary

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd and the responsible Area Director.

This document describes the typical processes that working groups use to
"adopt" documents as working group drafts.  As it's describing an
informal process, for information and informal guidance to the
community, it is Informational (not BCP).

2. Review and Consensus

There was some discussion of the document on the IETF discussion list
for a few days in May and June, about 35 messages mostly under the
subject line "When to adopt a WG I-D".  The main substantive discussion
was with respect to "adoption" not being a formal part of the process,
and making sure that the document doesn't make it sound like it is.
There's some concern that even having it document might be problematic.
"Is this defining process?"  "Should this be an RFC, or done another way
(wiki, tutorial)?"  Apart from that, the comments were positive,
favouring the document and making suggestions.  There were a reasonable
number of participants commenting.  There was only moderate discussion
during last call, leading to a few editorial changes.

3. Intellectual Property

The authors are aware of their responsibilities under BCP 79, and they
have conformed to them.  There are no IPR statements filed related to
this document.

4. Other Points

None.
2014-02-03
06 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was changed
2014-02-03
06 Barry Leiba Ballot has been issued
2014-02-03
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-02-03
06 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2014-02-03
06 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2014-02-03
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-02-03
06 Dave Crocker IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-02-03
06 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-06.txt
2014-02-03
05 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-02-01
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2014-01-23
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga.
2014-01-16
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2014-01-16
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2014-01-16
05 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn'
2014-01-16
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-16
05 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-crocker-id-adoption-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-crocker-id-adoption-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2014-01-09
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2014-01-09
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2014-01-09
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2014-01-09
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2014-01-09
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2014-01-09
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2014-01-03
05 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-03
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Creating an IETF Working Group Draft) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Creating an IETF Working Group Draft) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Creating an IETF Working Group Draft'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-01-31. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as
  mandated by the working group's charter.  When a working group is
  ready to develop a particular document, the most common mechanism is
  for it to "adopt" an existing document as a starting point.  The
  document that a working group adopts and then develops further is
  based on initial input at varying levels of maturity.  An initial
  working group draft might be a document already in wide use, or it
  might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it
  might represent any level of maturity in between.  This document
  discusses how a working group typically handles the formal documents
  that it targets for publication.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2014-01-03
05 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-01-03
05 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was generated
2014-01-02
05 Barry Leiba Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-06
2014-01-02
05 Barry Leiba Last call was requested
2014-01-02
05 Barry Leiba Last call announcement was generated
2014-01-02
05 Barry Leiba Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-02
05 Barry Leiba State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-01-02
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-01-02
05 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba Notification list changed to : adrian@olddog.co.uk, dcrocker@bbiw.net, barryleiba@computer.org
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was changed
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was generated
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba Changed document writeup
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba
2013-10-12
04 Barry Leiba Document shepherd changed to Barry Leiba
2013-10-10
04 Jari Arkko Assigned to General Area
2013-10-10
04 Jari Arkko Intended Status changed to Informational
2013-10-10
04 Jari Arkko IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-10-10
04 Jari Arkko Stream changed to IETF from None
2013-10-10
04 Jari Arkko Shepherding AD changed to Jari Arkko
2013-10-07
04 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-04.txt
2013-09-19
03 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-03.txt
2013-05-28
02 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
2012-12-02
01 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-01.txt
2012-12-02
00 Dave Crocker New version available: draft-crocker-id-adoption-00.txt