there is also the not uncommon event where an idea starts as an individual idea,
moves into a WG, is rejected by the WG, becomes an individual idea, is picked up
by another WG, rejected, (lather, rinse, repeat), and then the -right- WG is
formed
and it is processed that way. In the current state of affairs, at each
name-change, the
document counter is reset, particularly for IP challenges.
and there is also Mr. Bush's dispensation to use neither WG or name in his
drafts…
he gets to use "YMBK"
Naming of IDs, while important, is not an accurate reflection of the growth and
evolution of
an idea in the IETF context.
/bill
On 28May2013Tuesday, at 7:59, Loa Andersson wrote:
Adrian,
I'm fine with this draft as long as it stays informational and is
viewed as a commentary on how what we are doing in the border land
between individual and formal working group documents, i.e. this is
not an IETF process text.
Names of ID file are a bit trickier than what I get from this draft
It is true that a document with a file name as:
draft-<wgname>-ietf-... uniquely is a working group document; you need
the approval of the wg chair(s) to have a draft with that file name
posted.
However, a draft with the file name:
draft-<individual>-ietf... may or may not be wg document, and it is
actually so when the the working group chairs states on the wg mailing
list that it is.
Admittedly this is often followed by a request to re-post it with
the common format of file names for wg documents, but it is not the
posting with the wg name format that makes it a wg document, it is the
announcement from wg chairs.
It is nowhere required to change the file name just because the
document has become a working group document. Stupid not to do it,
but not required. For example the appsawg does have two parked
*wg documents* that does not follow the naming convention above.
Now in section 5.1. you talk about a special case "documents supported
by a working", but that remains an individual draft but progress
according to the wg processes. I think that what is now RFC 3468 was
such a case; even though we at that did not talk about in those terms.
I think it would be clearer if you in section 5.1. just said that there
might be individual documents that is supported by a working group, and
that follows the naming conventions for individual documents.
/Loa
On 2013-05-28 11:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted
for publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as
Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative
definition of process) and would like your input.
What is not clear?
What have we got wrong?
How should we resolve the remaining editor notes?
Thanks,
Adrian
(per pro Dave)
[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64