Subject: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:41:48 +1200

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 13:22:55 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Process for Working Group Adoption of Drafts
        Authors         : Brian E. Carpenter
                          Fernando Gont
                          Michael Richardson
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2020-05-31

Abstract:
   IETF working groups often formally adopt drafts.  This document
   specifies minimum requirements for this process, thereby extending
   RFC 2418.  It also describes how an adopted draft may be withdrawn
   from the working group process.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 16:57:14 -0400

In section 2 on the effect of aadoption, should the text also note that 
when necessary the WG chairs may order the replacement of the document 
editors?

Section 3 on Rules for Adoption ... includes in its example text the 
statement that a WG has implicitly agreed to adopt the text of a WG 
design team.  I do not believe this is true, and would ask that the text 
and related comments be removed.  To further complicate this texxt, it 
conflates WG adopt with giving agenda time.  Those are not coupled.

The second bullet in section 3 is confusing.  It says that the call 
should be issued when there is clear interest in the draft.  Mostly,as 
chair, I have used the call to find out if there is clear interest in 
the draft.  Yes, I will issue an adoption call even if it is obviously 
going to succeed.  But the interesting cases are when the authors think 
there is interest and the chairs are not so sure.

The bullet in section 3 about "the IPR disclosures should be acceptable" 
needs some care.  Working groups MUST NOT engage in negotiations about 
what are or are not acceptable IPR licensing terms.  While workging 
groups are free to not work on a document due to the IPR, it is very 
hard to have discussion around that topic without venturing into waters 
we need to avoid.  If we are going to keep this bullet (it is 
technically correct), it needs some warnings.

The definition of the criterion "should not be in conflict with work 
elsewhere in the IETF" is far more complex than it appears.  Conflicts 
needs to be addressed.  Appropriateness of venue needs to be verified. 
As written, I as SFC co-chair should have objected to all the 
alternative service chaining techniques that have been brought forward 
and adopted in other working groups.  While I dislike some of them, It 
is not my place to tell them they can't work on them.

Section 4 talks about withdrawl of adoption.  That can happen.  But most 
of the time, what I have seen in the described case is simply to declare 
the document dead.  Withdrawl of adoption would seem to require some 
additional motivation beyond declaring it dead.  What?  Why?

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:44:41 +1200

Thanks Joel. My responses in line:

On 01-Jun-20 08:57, Joel Halpern wrote:
> and related comments be removed.

OK, we should check what BCP text there is already about design teams, and
update accordingly.

> To further complicate this texxt, it 

Yes, we can improve that.
 
> there is interest and the chairs are not so sure.

Yes, there is a certain circularity here. Will rephrase.
 
> technically correct), it needs some warnings.

Agreed.

> is not my place to tell them they can't work on them.

Yes, again we need to expand the point a bit.
 
> additional motivation beyond declaring it dead.  What?  Why?

To return change control to the authors, for example if they want to
submit the draft to the Independent Submissions scheme.

Thanks,
    Brian