Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF a formal or non-formal. I beleive we are in a formal so our managers (chairs and ADs) SHOULD follow formal procedures and participants MAY do both. I read the procedures and this is what I came out with if I am wrong please refer me to where does the procedure mention that WG Chairs have such authority. Now we got an I-D to explain the creation of WG drafts and the formal Chairs duties in this matter, please read below http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-id-adoption-00 AB
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote: According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. Not sure I agree with that. A draft submitted during the indicated week isn't up for discussion that week, but it may easily be the start of a mailing list discussion for a subsequent meeting, or it may be an update to a draft as an outcome of discussion. I see both pretty regularly.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/30/2012 3:29 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. ... Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. Indeed: we always have the option of having the charter limit management options. Barry, I think you are trying to make a very different point from the one I am trying to make. I think you are trying to assert that there is flexibility while I am trying to assert that there is common practice. These are not mutually exclusive points. My point about a formal process having emerged is that a chair/wg wanting to adopt a document has a well-established set of common practice. It's not well (or at all) documented, but it exists in how working groups typically do things. I was not trying to comment on the degree to which that process is mandated. I acknowledge that fully documenting common practice, to make it official formal process, must combine both lines of concern. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a problem, per se, or that they would be done better with yet another process document. [WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle and maturity is the right time to adopt it as a WG document, and whether it is appropriate to discuss an individual document in a WG at any length without adopting it. It seemed odd to me that there would be this much confusion on the matter, and I provided several examples of different philosophies that I have observed when it comes to handling this question. The response I got back indicated that WG adoption of drafts isn't really a thing as far as the official documentation of document lifecycle is concerned, which made me wonder if perhaps we do as much WG adoption of drafts as we do mainly out of inertia, either people doing it because that's how they've seen others do it in the past, or doing it because they assume it's part of the documented process, rather than for any real reason. I'm not a big fan of doing things for no reason, so the ensuing discussion was intended to tease this out a bit to see whether we should have some clearer guidelines around WG draft adoption, better education on the reasoning behind it, or whether maybe we should stop doing it. Is it the largest problem facing the IETF? Not by a long shot. But it seemed worth a little discussion, at least to me. Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem. [WEG] process we don't happen to like because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time is very much a problem. But I didn't bring this up because I didn't like the process, I brought it up because I was seeking a little clarity on the underlying reasons we use the process (at least partially to improve my own knowledge as a WG chair and draft author). Thus far that clarity has still not presented itself. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/28/2012 7:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Let's start with a basic point and work from there: There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. There is flexibility in the process that has developed, but it's become quite formal. The first shakey steps were controlling assignment of draft-wgname roughly 20 years ago and it has evolved from there. Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of a WG document is formed. Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged. The next part of your note summarizes a couple of common starting points for drafts. On 11/29/2012 11:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented policy I call a management choice. There certainly are parts of wg management that are left to chair discretion. However the IETF also likes to use squishy language like management choice to avoid being disciplined in its formal processes. We are constantly afraid of edge conditions, and use that fear as an excuse for being inconsistent in the handling of typical cases. In the current discussion, I think there needs to be an essential distinction: For example, choosing editors is /formally/ a management choice. Approval of drafts is not. I think the essential point is the difference between 'what' and 'how'. The IETF has unusual flexibility in the 'how', and often leaves the choices to management... but implicitly based on acceptance of the working group. In very specific circumstances, such as selecting editors, the freedom of management choice is permitted for the 'what'. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
At 06:09 30-11-2012, George, Wes wrote: [WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle and maturity is the right time to adopt it as a WG document, and whether it is appropriate to discuss an individual document in a WG at any length without adopting it. It seemed odd to me that there would be this much confusion on the matter, and I provided several examples of different philosophies that I have observed when it comes to handling this question. The response I got back indicated that WG adoption of drafts isn't really a thing as far as the official documentation of document lifecycle is concerned, which made me wonder if perhaps we do as much WG adoption of drafts as we do mainly out of inertia, either people doing it because that's how they've seen others do it in the past, or doing it because they assume it's part of the documented process, rather than for any real reason. I'm not a big fan of doing things for no reason, so the ensuing discussion was intended to tease this out a bit to see whether we should have some clearer guidelines around WG draft adoption, better education on the reasoning behind it, or whether maybe we should stop doing it. Is it the largest problem facing the IETF? Not by a long shot. But it seemed worth a little discussion, at least to me. You seem to have things under control in SUNSET. After reading your messages to this mailing list I didn't understand what you were asking. There is no such thing as a right time to adopt a document. Look at it this way, if you get it right nobody will know, if you get it wrong the working group will say bad things about you, if you get it really wrong the Area Director will be on your back. The choices for a working group chair are: (a) To get the work done (b) Not to do anything wrong If you choose (a) you will end up a lot of enemies. If you choose (b) you may or may not have a long career in the IETF. It is possible to discuss an individual document in a working group without adopting it. It is, as you mentioned, a matter of philosophy. If you find it disruptive you can say no. A lot of the things done in the IETF are done because we see others doing it. In essence they are done for no reason. On the Internet there is something called a sense of entitlement. The author of a draft may assume that he has a right to a RFC number. You can help him/her to get that RFC number as you were selected as working group chair to make everyone happy (or is it something else :-)). I'll quote http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/attachment/wiki/IETF78/IETF78-WGchairs-Adrian-Farrel.ppt?format=raw 'Do you think this I-D should become a WG draft? - Can easily turn into a vote - Ask for reasons to be given to accompany a no opinion - Ask for expressions of willingness to work on or review the draft Avoid votes!' [WEG] process we don't happen to like because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time is very much a problem. But I didn't bring this up because I didn't like the process, I brought it up because I was seeking a little clarity on the underlying reasons we use the process (at least partially to improve my own knowledge as a WG chair and draft author). Thus far that clarity has still not presented itself. I'll edit what you said: [adoption] doesn't happen because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time. It seems that what you are asking about is a sanity check. You could sound some people to get a sense of which direction to take. Regards, -sm
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. ... Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. Indeed: we always have the option of having the charter limit management options. That's a fine thing to do when it's appropriate, and some combination of the working group proponents, the community as a whole, and the IESG decides what's appropriate. For chartering, the IESG has the final word. Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged. I find that to be an interesting interpretation. I don't see it that way. I do, indeed, mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts. We have a common custom, which many -- probably most -- working groups use. As Wes noted, it's not used in a consistent way, exactly because it is NOT a formal process in any sense. We have a very well defined mechanism (a formal process) for making it a formal process, and we haven't done so. Wes noted that he'd like to; perhaps you'd like to join him in that. The formal process, as you know, would be to submit an Internet Draft with a target status of BCP, and either find an AD to sponsor it as an individual submission or make a BoF request and try to get a working group chartered for it. Only when that document becomes an approved BCP will we actually have formal steps. Until then, we have a custom that's usually, but not always, followed. Barry
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. Working group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section 6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of a WG document is formed. [WEG] snip We seem to have settled into a culture of starting with individual submissions and adopting them, but there's nothing that requires that [WEG] What this says to me is that we are adhering to an ad hoc or de facto process, and therefore in most cases we're not really thinking about why we do it, or even if we should, we're just going with the flow of past precedent. AKA, that's the way we've always done it/that's just the way we do things around here. We wouldn't do that with a technical protocol that we defined, we'd update the standard to reflect reality as implemented. So why are we behaving differently with our internal protocol? If it works and people like it, let's document it so that it can be applied consistently. If people think it's unnecessary and we should stick to the documentation as written (no adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. There are plenty of WGs that have specific ways that they like to handle document submission, reviews, and requests for agenda time. It might be useful to have that all in one place so that people can know what's expected of them. So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. [WEG] Barry, I respectfully disagree. The whole point I'm making here (and Geoff underscored nicely) is that it's currently too variable and too reliant on a small group of individual volunteers implementing it correctly. When things are not documented, we are dependent on having leadership who innately know how to do the right thing. But that leadership turns over fairly frequently. so assuming that we'll always have people in leadership who know how to make this process work correctly without some guidance is pretty risky, IMO. As the IETF ages and grows, and personnel (participants and leaders) turn over, the oral tradition breaks down in a hurry. Further, no matter how good the individuals are at their jobs within the IETF, applying undocumented policy (especially doing it inconsistently) looks to the outside world as arbitrary and capricious, or as centralizing authority, and that's not at all productive in an open standards development process. It can be discouraging to new participants, because it contributes to the overwhelming nature of figuring out how to get started as a new document author, and it can make the process seem more closed than it actually is. It is quite possible to document a policy or procedure with directional guidance and enough flexibility to allow intelligent adults to think for themselves and adapt to the reality of the situation during implementation. I'm willing to work on an update to 2418 to cover this apparent gap, but I'd like to know whether others agree that this is a problem (and are willing to work on the update with me). Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with opinions as well. Yes, we could change our documentation to explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice. But I'll caution you against trying to do that in general: we have a million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of value in the end. In general, we specify what we want to specify, and what's left is up to judgment and management. Further, no matter how good the individuals are at their jobs within the IETF, applying undocumented policy (especially doing it inconsistently) looks to the outside world as arbitrary and capricious Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented policy I call a management choice. How to assign document editors is a management choice. How to record track issues is a management choice. How much to open up general discussion, vs requiring focus on certain things now, and others later, is a management choice. Whether to process one or two documents at a time, or do five or six is a management choice. Even whether to have a formal working group last call is a management choice -- that one *is* discussed in 2418, because it's common enough and we thought it important enough. But a WGC who decides it's not necessary for a particular document isn't violating any process or policy. We hire the best and the brightest as our working group chairs in order to rely on their judgment and management abilities, exactly because a lot of flexibility is necessary, so a lot of judgment is necessary as well. Again, trying to nail everything down isn't desirable. And even trying to nail down the list of things that aren't nailed down isn't, as I see it. Barry
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/29/12 10:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with opinions as well. Yes, we could change our documentation to explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice. But I'll caution you against trying to do that in general: we have a million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of value in the end. In general, we specify what we want to specify, and what's left is up to judgment and management. Hear, hear (and I feel pretty strongly about this). There are correction mechanisms if someone feels that a process has gone off the rails and I prefer to rely on those than trying to micromanage IETF process. Right now it seems to be the case that keeping much unspecified and having strong chairs is a better use of limited resources than trying to shove everything into a box. I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. Melinda
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
At 08:24 29-11-2012, George, Wes wrote: adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. There are plenty of WGs that have specific ways that they like to handle document submission, reviews, and requests for agenda time. It might be useful to have that all in one place so that people can know what's expected of them. There is a wiki for WG Chairs. Melinda Shore posted some comments on this list several months ago. She followed up and added material to the wiki [1]. There must be over a hundred WG Chairs. Only a handful of them have bothered to add material to the wiki. [WEG] Barry, I respectfully disagree. The whole point I'm making here (and Geoff underscored nicely) is that it's currently too variable and too reliant on a small group of individual volunteers implementing it correctly. When things are not documented, we The problem which Geoff Huston commented about might have occurred in a working group within the Routing Area. According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. The following working groups posted drafts during that period: DHC BMWG MPLS TSVWG MMUSIC CODEC 6MAN MANET HIP APPSAWG P2PSIP SAVI DIME DNSOP OAUTH IDR SIPREC SIPCORE L2VPN FECFRAME MILE EAI STRAW PRECIS XMPP JOSE PCP URNBIS LISP NFSV4 MBONED SIPCLF OPSEC TRILL CCAMP MIF REPUTE ECRIT PAWS At 11:45 29-11-2012, Melinda Shore wrote: box. I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. Yes. Section 6.5.1 of a document, which everyone claims to have read and understood, spells out what people should do if they want to protest. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75826.html
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not the most productive use of smart folks' time. randy
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
Just picking at one point... According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that have completed last call or are in IESG processing? Cheers, Adrian
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 30/11/2012, at 8:14 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not the most productive use of smart folks' time. On the other hand any organised social activity is organised by virtue of the adoption of a common set of norms about the behaviour of individuals - we call em rules and processes, but the purpose is common. To what extent the activity is tolerant of exceptions, and to what extent the group activity is capable of self examination and evolution in the light of such exceptions is critical for longevity. Rigid systems tend to ossify while flexible systems tend to adapt. So for me its not that the ITU is any more rule and processed obsessed than the IETF's WGs. I'm sure we could all cite instances all along the spectrum of behaviour in both forums. The distinction for me is the ability of the forum to undertake self examination and evolve the rules and processes in the light of what may have originally been seen as exceptional behaviour. Geoff
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/29/2012 3:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Just picking at one point... According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that have completed last call or are in IESG processing? Cheers, Adrian In addition to the cases Adrian asked about, isn't there also the case of an author/editor updating a draft that has already been discussed and then submitting it during IETF week? Thanks, Spencer
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba we have a million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of value in the end. In general, we specify what we want to specify, and what's left is up to judgment and management. [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion and inconsistency that has been created by something that is unspecified and asking should we specify? Further, no matter how good the individuals are at their jobs within the IETF, applying undocumented policy (especially doing it inconsistently) looks to the outside world as arbitrary and capricious Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented policy I call a management choice. [WEG] that's not really a gap, especially because you can replace my words with yours and the statement above still holds. I am saying is that there is an inconsistency because different people are making different choices on how to proceed, hopefully with the consensus of the WG behind them. IMO, the inconsistency goes beyond merely being flexible to accommodate the widest variety of cases, and adds confusion and variability to the process. I think the gap arises from the fact that you do not see this as inconsistent or that you do not see the inconsistency as a bad thing. It may not be bad in all cases, but I think there's a middle ground between overcreation and overapplication of rules and relative anarchy. I'm just trying to make sure we're actually in that happy medium, and that this is indeed the result of a conscious decision rather than simply imitating what we see in other WGs because that seems to work. FWIW, the WG Chairs wiki is also silent on this matter, and perhaps that is the best place to add a discussion about WG adoption of I-Ds. Is that more palatable? We hire the best and the brightest as our working group chairs in order to rely on their judgment and management abilities, [WEG] Well, no disrespect to any current or former AD, but this is giving us entirely too much credit for why the vast majority of our WG chairs are good at their jobs when it's more likely attributable to luck. Unlike other leadership positions in IETF, there's no formal interview or hiring process to determine who out of the group of engineers that make up IETF is best qualified to start chairing a WG. I certainly had no specific experience that made me any better than anyone else at being a WG chair the first time around. My qualifications included a non-zero amount of common sense, available cycles, interest in the topic, and joking the poor sense not to decline when asked to serve /joking. There's no mandatory training class. If one is lucky, you get paired with an experienced co-chair (I did) and given a pointer to the wiki (I didn't) to help you learn on the fly. It's clear that we trust our WG chairs, and there's nothing wrong with that. But sometimes providing them with more guidance is helpful. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote: [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion and inconsistency that has been created by something that is unspecified and asking should we specify? I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a problem, per se, or that they would be done better with yet another process document. Lo, those many years ago I co-chaired (with Avri Doria) the problem working group. It was a very bad experience, and I think left me convinced that dorking around with formalizing process stuff should absolutely not be done unless someone's identified a specific problem that interferes with getting documents out. Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem. Melinda
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
Hi Adrian, At 13:16 29-11-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that have completed last call or are in IESG processing? I did not verify the state of the drafts for above when I listed the working groups. I listed a working group which did not have any session. I know that one of the working groups in the list has documents going through IESG processing. If you ask me whether the list is a good representation of the text I quoted, my answer would be no. There are three meetings slots in a year. If a group misses that slot it losses the opportunity for three months of work (assuming that there is discussion on the mailing list). People are free to object to object about the process not being followed to the letter or about arbitrary decisions of the chair. If I was a WG Chair and somebody asked why the work is being delayed or the working group is doing nothing I would point to the objection. What I won't say is whether people who will be implementing the work or who are actually going to review the work will walk away. Regards, -sm
When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on the matter. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
Hi, Wes, all, +1 to no one-size-fits-all. A model that's worked well in a few groups I've been involved in is something between (2) and (3), where the defined criteria is complete enough that interoperable implementations could conceivably be produced, a slightly lower bar; with the added caveat that discussion of the developing individual draft is encouraged on the working group list, and will be given second-preference agenda time at meetings. This allows a smaller group around the initial authors to build a coherent proposal, without shutting those out from the process who are motivated to contribute. The WG -00 then has at least plausible suggested answers to the most obvious questions raised, and can be modified by the WG from there (or, indeed, eventually rejected if it turns out the broad approach is incapable of drawing consensus support). This looks basically like a design team approach with self-appointed design teams. This approach would tend to work better for incremental or self-contained work around an already-elaborated framework or theme. Best regards, Brian On 28 Nov 2012, at 16:36 , George, Wes wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on the matter. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. ... It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. Let's start with a basic point and work from there: There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. Working group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section 6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of a WG document is formed. One mechanism could be that the charter says that the WG will develop a Lightweight Modular Network Operations Protocol, so the WGCs say, We appoint Wes George as the document editor for the LMNOP doc. Wes then goes off and creates draft-ietf-xyzwg-lmnop-00 based on discussion so far, or even based on his own opinion of a good start for the protocol spec. Discussion ensues and Wes makes changes based on the discussion, because, being a good document editor, he knows how to make the document reflect what the WG wants. A couple of issues are contentious, and the WGCs handle the evaluation of consensus for those, and Wes incorporates that. In the end, the WG as a whole thinks that the document accurately reflects WG rough consensus, and the chairs request publication. Another model is that two or more people submit candidate documents, and the WG decides which one is the best starting point. That's where adoption comes in. From there, the rest of the process goes the same. However we get to the -00 document, as long as the rest of the process goes the way it's supposed to, we're fine. We seem to have settled into a culture of starting with individual submissions and adopting them, but there's nothing that requires that, and for documents where there's not significant contention between radically different starting points, there's probably no need for it. So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. Barry
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
I guess that a better question is: What are the expectations if a draft becomes an WG document? The opinions ranges from: a) It is something that some members of the WG consider inside the scope of the charter. z) This is a contract that the IESG will bless this document! Not all working groups are the same, some work on brand new stuff and it makes sense to have competing ideas progress and then the WG makes a choice. In other cases the WG is just fixing something in an important deployed protocol thus stricter criteria makes sense. For a WG I have chaired we have two adoption paths: a) publish draft as draft-editor-wg---, discuss on WG mailing list once document is on track and people can make intelligent choice ask for adoption. b) Chairs based on discussion on lists or events, will commission a WG document to address a particular issue. This will be published as draft-ietf-wg- in version 00. Most of the time this is reserved for updated version of published RFC's. Olafur On 28/11/2012 10:36, George, Wes wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on the matter. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. I think the IETF procedures are clear that the WG should authorise all works, not the chairs nor the ADs. However, chairs guide the discussions on the list (which in few times does not happen because we are volunteering), and ADs guide the chairs and direct the WG output. The WG input is only authorised by the participants through rough consensus. So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. AB I disagree that chairs have such authority on process without checking the WG if there was an objection or not. The ADs are there for the chairs guidance too not only participants. The chairs role is important to encourage/manage participants input time/effort in faivor of the WG charters. However, I agree that chairs MAY take decision on behalf of WG because they want to save time and they know the WG initial opinion by experience (still they need to check if there is any objection). But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF a formal or non-formal. I beleive we are in a formal so our managers (chairs and ADs) SHOULD follow formal procedures and participants MAY do both. I read the procedures and this is what I came out with if I am wrong please refer me to where does the procedure mention that WG Chairs have such authority. AB
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 29/11/2012, at 2:36 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version 4) adopt after seeing a reasonable number of WG members post NOT in favour of adoption, on the purported grounds that such expressions of disinterest in adopting the draft by some strange twist of logic are portrayed to point to interest in discussing the document Geoff
