Hi,
I'm sorry to come late to this draft. It's very useful but
I have a few comments.
Working groups use this mechanism
for producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of [RFC2418]
Perhaps this also needs to refer to Section 2.2 of [RFC2026] which
is the basic description of I-Ds.
draft-ietf-<wgname>-...
Maybe it's mentioned later, but I think a warning that this
convention is not always followed would be useful.
(If you doubt me, check draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy, a sipcore
draft that I recently reviewed for Gen-ART.)
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. It is laborious, but
diligent, and it validates progress at each step along the way.
Excuse me if I describe this text as turgid; it's certainly hard to
read. Does it mean the following?
In theory, a working group considers each item in a document and
possibly modifies it before approval. For difficult topics, or for
cases where the working group is contentious, there is no alternative
to discussing each item. This is a laborious process requiring great
diligence, and it validates progress at each step along the way.
* Can an Individual I-D be under the care of a WG?
How about adding
* Can a WG I-D become an Individual I-D?
When there is an existing document and the chairs want to propose
adopting it as a new working group document
There are two paths to this point:
1. The existing document was solicited by the WG, because it corresponds
to an item in the WG charter, and the normal expectation is that the
document will be adopted.
2. The existing document was unsolicited, and might even require a charter
update.
Adoption, not approval: The document is not required to already
contain a complete and/or sufficient solution, although of
course this can be helpful.
Also, adoption does not guarantee eventual publication as
an RFC; the WG could later abandon the document.
5.1. Individual I-Ds Under WG Care
...
Typically such documents are handled according to normal, internal
working group process management. However matters of ownership,
working group final approval, and the like are all subject to
negotiation amongst the document authors, working group and area
directors.
I am not so sure about that "typically". In fact I'm confused by
what you mean. If I write draft-carpenter-6man-foobar, and 6man
is interested in it, it will end up as draft-ietf-6man-foobar.
If 6man isn't interested in it, and I decide to pursue it, it's
possible I will submit it to an AD, with or without the 6man
chairs being helpful, or maybe I'll submit it to the Independent
Series Editor. But I don't know what you mean about such a draft
being handled *under its individual name* according to normal
working group process management, unless it's been adopted but
not renamed (like draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy).
Regards
Brian Carpenter