Hi,
Two small comments, based on observations in TCPM. Obviously, this draft cannot
handle all WG specifics, but maybe my two remarks also apply to other WGs...
First, the document could perhaps mention that during the adoption of a draft
there can be a discussion about the planned status (e.g., STD vs. EXP), even if
the status can change later in the process. In TCPM, this is almost always the
case, and therefore the chairs have to consider the planned status as one
question when creating/adopting a WG draft.
Second, I am not sure if the following statement in Section 2.2 could be
detailed a bit:
* Is there strong working group support for working on the draft?
Actually, in TCPM, the "working group support for working on the draft" is
often not the most important criteria for adoption. The key one is the more
specific question whether there indeed "working group energy for contributing
and reviewing". For instance, sometimes, we have the following situation: The
community really likes a new, interesting idea, and the WG therefore really
wants that "somebody" works out all the nasty protocol details that a full spec
would require. This is typically left to the authors of the individual document
proposing this idea. Yet, since TCPM deals with a core Internet protocol,
having a WG document also implies that the WG should indeed verify this spec,
e.g., in all the corner cases that can occur in a complex protocol. And,
surprise, surprise, finding volunteers for that is often more difficult than
finding people that really like an idea and want the WG to work on it... As a
result, the chairs have to think about the completion of any new W!
G document quite a bit in advance...
If this effect should exist in other WGs as well, maybe one could add some
additional explanation regarding the "willingness to contribute and review" to
a new WG document. It could also relate to Section 4 as one aspect of document
"maturity".
Thanks
Michael
________________________________________
Von: IETF-Announce [ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]" im Auftrag
von "The IESG [iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Januar 2014 16:14
An: IETF-Announce
Betreff: Last Call: <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> (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'
<draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-01-31. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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.