Last Call Review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
review-crocker-id-adoption-05-secdir-lc-wierenga-2014-01-23-00

Request Review of draft-crocker-id-adoption
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2014-01-31
Requested 2014-01-09
Draft last updated 2014-01-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Klaas Wierenga
State Completed
Review review-crocker-id-adoption-05-secdir-lc-wierenga-2014-01-23
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2014-01-23

Review
review-crocker-id-adoption-05-secdir-lc-wierenga-2014-01-23

Hi Dave, Adrian,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft describes the typical process for handling the working group drafts workflow.
Let me start with saying that the draft is well written and a pleasure to read.

I believe the non-inclusion of any security considerations makes sense.

Major issues
-----------------
none

Minor issues
-----------------

General:

- 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.

- 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.

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)"

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.

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

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

- "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.

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


Hope this helps,

Klaas