Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 00:53:48 -0300

Hi, Brian,

[Apologies for breaking the "threading" feature, since I just subscribed
to the list, and hence I'm not using the "Reply" feature of my email 
client, but rather composing a new message]

In-line....
> 
> While looking into something recently, I noticed that we don't seem
> to have any documented process for document adoption by WGs, or even
> general guidelines, although the tracker and the I-D submission
> mechanism support this change of state. It isn't described in RFC2418
> or in the Tao, or anywhere else that I could find. Yet it's become
> quite important in the life of most WGs, and the decision to adopt a
> draft is of considerable importance.
> 
> Is this a topic that deserves some work? (No, I haven't written a
> draft, and don't want to unless there is interest.)

Yes. It is indeed very important, and it does deserve work. I would 
encourage work on the topic.

Questions such a document should address include:

1) What are the conditions, if any, necessary for a wg call for adoption 
to be performed on a document?

2) If/when those conditions are met, what are reasonable timeframe 
expectations for the consensus call to be performed?

3) The previous two bullets would also imply that if the conditions in 
#1 have been met, and the time in #2 has elapsed, failure to perform a 
consensus call should be considered an action (by omission) subject to 
the procedures in RFC2026.

You can count on me for reviewing a draft (if eventually there's any), 
or proposing text if that'd be of value.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 07:19:06 -0500

These are helpful observations from Brian and Fernando.

I have thoughts. Inline.

> the procedures in RFC2026.

I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As an
individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step for
drafts I am working on.

I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new
participants.

I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's probably a
question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list.

I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups
that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases.

As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as recommendations
- we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger decisions about
working group consensus for the benefit of their working groups. So a
RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more useful than a
REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over when we write
such text.

And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the
procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. This probably
isn't a special case that needs to be mentioned in a document ("in addition
to everything else that you can appeal, we remind you that you can appeal
this, too").

Do The Right Thing, of course.

Best,

Spencer

> Gendispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:29 +1200

One more thing before we write a draft. A thread elsewhere reminded me that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.2 covers some of this ground. It's Informational so doesn't have normative effect. But is it already enough?

Regards
   Brian

On 19-May-20 00:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:54 PM Fernando Gont <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, Brian,
> 
> I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step for drafts I am working on. 
> 
> I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new participants. 
> 
> I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list.
> 
> I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases. 
> 
> As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over when we write such text. 
> 
> And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. This probably isn't a special case that needs to be mentioned in a document ("in addition to everything else that you can appeal, we remind you that you can appeal this, too"). 
> 
>     e-mail: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 06:50:49 -0300

> One more thing before we write a draft. A thread elsewhere reminded me that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.2 covers some of this ground. It's Informational so doesn't have normative…

The rest of the process is BCP. So I think the wg adoption part should, too.

Thanks!

Cheers,

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 06:56:05 -0300

Hi, Spencer,

On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
[....]
> I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As 
> an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step 
> for drafts I am working on.
> 
> I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's 
> probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list.
> 

Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for many 
reasons.

> As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as 
> recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger 
> decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working 
> groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more 
> useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over 
> when we write such text.
> 
> procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. 

I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision?

Thanks,

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 06:58:52 -0300

> groups. 

Not sure what you mean.

But if I understand correctly, that's a double-edged sword. My 
understanding is that, ultimately, it's the wg (and not the chairs) that 
should make decisions.

Thanks,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 08:22:29 +1200

On 22-May-20 21:56, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
> I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision?

I believe that the very first appeal ever was an appeal against
non-action by the IESG. The record seems to be mixed up with a second
appeal by somebody else:
https://www.iab.org/appeals/1995-2/appeal-against-iesg-inaction-by-mr-dave-cocker-mr-w-simpson-appeal-iab-response-february-1995/

2026 actually says that it
"specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with
 Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal
 processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards
 Process participants ordinarily reach consensus."

Not reaching a decision seems like an Internet standards issue to me.

Regards
     Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 22:35:39 -0500

Hi, Fernando,

> > decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working

You can explain why something is a good idea or a bad idea (guidance), or
you can use normative language.

> understanding is that, ultimately, it's the wg (and not the chairs) that

Right. And the chairs judge whether the working group has consensus on the
decision, and if they screw that up, that's when the appeals process starts
;-)

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 22:41:48 -0500

Hi, Fernando,

> Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for many

Agreed. The question is whether it's necessary for every document in every
working group, or whether you're providing guidance, so that working groups
can Do The Right Thing.

We almost always have BOFs before we form working groups, but we don't
REQUIRE that, and I formed one or two working groups without a BOF, because
that was The Right Thing To Do.

Same thing here.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 16:14:46 +1200

On 31-May-20 15:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Fernando,
> 
> On Fri, May 22, 2020, 04:56 Fernando Gont <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, Spencer,
> 
> Agreed. The question is whether it's necessary for every document in every working group, or whether you're providing guidance, so that working groups can Do The Right Thing.

Sure. We're thinking along the lines of IF you want to do a formal adoption THEN here are the rules. Anyway... yes... a draft is planned. Soon.

   Brian

> 
> We almost always have BOFs before we form working groups, but we don't REQUIRE that, and I formed one or two working groups without a BOF, because that was The Right Thing To Do.
> 
> Same thing here. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Spencer
>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 01:22:14 -0300

On 31/5/20 00:35, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Fernando,
> 
> On Fri, May 22, 2020, 05:11 Fernando Gont <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> You can explain why something is a good idea or a bad idea (guidance), 
> or you can use normative language.

Given that there's normative text for other parts of the standards 
process, I believe wg adoption should be covered by normative text, too.

> Right. And the chairs judge whether the working group has consensus on 
> the decision, and if they screw that up, that's when the appeals process 
> starts ;-)

That assumes the call for adoption has taken place. Unfortunately, there 
doesn't seem a common understanding on when calls for adoption should 
take place, or even what "adoption" actually means.

Thanks,