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
] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 04 December 2012 13:33
To: d...@dcrocker.net
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your work, please provide us with feedback while the process of
editing. I was thinking to do something in the future, but thanks
of working group drafts:
Title: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption
Abstract:
The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as
mandated by the working group's charter. Working groups develop
these documents
Sent: 04 December 2012 13:33
To: d...@dcrocker.net
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your work, please provide us with feedback while the process of
editing. I was thinking to do something in the future, but thanks that you will
do it.
AB
Folks
On 03/12/2012 00:24, Arturo Servin wrote:
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D).
Melinda and/or Randy have said what I want to
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D).
Melinda and/or Randy have said what I want to say, but as a factual
clarification to
are No and No.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ
Housley
Sent: 03 December 2012 13:48
To: IETF
Subject: Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
1.1
On 12/3/2012 5:58 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
We could certainly say this. It is a true statement.
However, the document is trying to talk about WG I-Ds, not to provide a general
description of everything the IETF and RFC Editor ever does.
...
My answers are No and No.
+1
The existing text
On 12/2/12 11:25 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Who said that?
Melinda
in the adoption of working group drafts:
Title: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption
Abstract:
The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as
mandated by the working group's charter. Working groups develop
in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic.
Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#
Folks,
There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended to
document common practice in the adoption of working group drafts:
Title: Creating an IETF Working
On 12/2/12 11:18 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria:
- Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured
discussion in the WG.
I'm actually not sure about that. It seems to me that in the past
we've had working
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Regards,
as
On 02/12/2012 18:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/2/12 11:18 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate
On 12/2/2012 10:47 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended to
document common practice in the adoption of working group drafts:
Title: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption
At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for
the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Yes.
I'll comment on draft-crocker-id-adoption-01.
Section 1 is fine. I'll suggest not amending the BCP (see the last
round of
Well, I think we shouldn't.
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
/as
On 02/12/2012 20:36, SM wrote:
At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
and so that the chairs have the option of changing editorship to turn
them into good ideas.
randy
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
i thought that was wglc. but i am a dinosaur.
randy
On 02/12/2012 21:50, Randy Bush wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
and so that the chairs have the option of changing editorship to turn
them into good ideas.
randy
That's is true. But I would prefer to
On 02/12/2012 21:52, Randy Bush wrote:
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
i thought that was wglc. but i am a dinosaur.
randy
What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the
path of the bad idea to
What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the path
of the bad idea to become RFC somehow or at least to waste a lot of
time fighting against it.
we used to call that 'discussion' as opposed to ppt presentation. and
discussion is what wgs were for, see other thread.
randy,
On 12/2/12 2:56 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
That's is true. But I would prefer to accept a I+D as WG item until
we are sure that we are somehow committed to follow the path
described/proposed in the document. Accepting the document assuming that
chairs are going to turn bad ideas to good in
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D). Working groups use this mechanism for
producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of
On 12/2/12 3:24 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
So am I. I have no problem with a working group adopting a document
as a tool in the development of their deliverables, either as a place
to keep notes or as a document with a separate
Hi Arturo,
At 15:56 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
described/proposed in the document. Accepting the document assuming that
chairs are going to turn bad ideas to good in my opinio is not good.
My guess is that you will be approached to chair a WG at some point.
Regards,
-sm
25 matches
Mail list logo
