Handling of Internet-Drafts by IETF Working Groups
RFC 7221

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2014-02-06 for -07)
No email
send info
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-<wgname>-...

   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-<lastname>-...

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-<lastname>-... 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-<lastname>-<wgname>... 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-<lastname>-... 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.

Barry Leiba Yes

(Pete Resnick) Yes

Comment (2014-02-05 for -07)
No email
send info
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.

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-05 for -07)
No email
send info
"""
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.

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-04 for -06)
No email
send info
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.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-06 for -07)
No email
send info
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.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-04 for -06)
No email
send info
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.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-05 for -06)
No email
send info
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.

(Adrian Farrel) Recuse