One document matched: draft-crocker-id-adoption-03.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" >
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="no"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="2"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc topblock="yes" ?>
<?rfc autobreaks="yes" ?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-crocker-id-adoption-03" ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title>Creating an IETF Working Group Draft</title>
<author fullname="Adrian Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel">
<organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
<address>
<email>adrian@olddog.co.uk</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Dave Crocker" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Crocker">
<organization>Brandenburg InternetWorking</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>675 Spruce Drive</street>
<city>Sunnyvale</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>94086</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1.408.246.8253</phone>
<email>dcrocker@bbiw.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
<area>General</area>
<workgroup />
<keyword>IETF process working group draft adoption creation</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as mandated by the working
group's charter. When a working group is ready to develop a particular document it
usually "adopts" it as a working group draft. The document that a working group adopts
and then develops further is based on initial input at varying levels of maturity. An
initial working group draft might be a document already in wide use, or it might be a
blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it might represent any level of
maturity in between. This document discusses typicals aspects of a working group's
handling of its formal documents, which are targeted for publication. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as mandated by the working
group's charter. Working groups develop these documents based on initial input of
varying levels of maturity. An initial working group draft might be a document already
in wide use, or it might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it
might represent any level of maturity in between. This document discusses the criteria
and sequence often applied when adopting and developing formal IETF working group
drafts, which are targeted for publication. The discussion applies only to the IETF and
does not cover IRTF groups, where practices vary widely.</t>
<t>Within the general constraints of formal IETF process and the specific constraints of a
working group's charter, there can be considerable freedom in the adoption and
development of drafts. As with most IETF activities, the ultimate arbiter of such
choices is working group agreement, within the constraints of its charter. As with most
working group management, this agreement might be explicit or implicit, depending upon
the efficiencies that the group deems appropriate.</t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="NOTE: ">This draft is intentionally non-normative. It is meant as a
guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of what is
permissible.</t>
</list></t>
<section title="What is a Working Group Draft?">
<t>Working Group drafts are documents that are subject to IETF Working Group revision
control. Adoption of the draft by the working group, and substantive changes to the
document, need to represent working group rough consensus. </t>
<t>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 <xref target="RFC2418" /> and Section 8.3 of <xref target="RFC4677" />
and <xref target="ID-Info" />. The convention for identifying an I-D formally under
the ownership of a working group is by the inclusion of "ietf" in the second field of
the I-D filename and the working group name in the third field, per Section 7 of
<xref target="ID-Guidelines" />. That is: <figure>
<artwork>
<![CDATA[draft-ietf-<wgname>-...]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Responsibility for direct revision of a working group I-D is assigned to its authors.
See <xref target="authedit" /> for discussion about their selection and role.</t>
</section>
<section title="Working Group Authority and Consensus">
<t>A core premise of IETF working groups is that the working group has final authority
over the content of its documents, within the constraints of the working group
charter. No individual has special authority for the content. The chairs task
document authors/editors and can formulate design teams, but the content of working
group documents is always, ultimately, subject to working group approval. Approval is
described in terms of the IETF's "rough consensus" construct, which is the prime
example of the IETF's preference for pragmatics over niceties. Unanimous agreement is
always desirable, but more approximate (rough) agreement will suffice, as long as it
is clear and strong. </t>
<t>Other than for selection of document authors, as discussed in <xref target="authedit"
/>, working group decision-making about document management is subject to normal
IETF process rules. Useful descriptions of this process for a working group are in
Section 3.3 of <xref target="RFC2418" /> and Section 5.2 of <xref target="RFC4677"
/>.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t> At times a document author can appear to have considerable authority over content,
but this is (merely) for efficiency. That is, the chairs can permit authors to
proceed with an implied (default) working group agreement, as long as the working
group is comfortable with that mode. Of course the benefit in the mode is efficiency,
but its risk is failure to retain or verify actual consensus among the working group
participants. When a working group is operating in the mode of active, direct author
content development, an easy validation method is simply to have chairs query the
working group when a new document version appears, asking for comments and
concerns.</t>
<t>In general when it is not completely obvious what the opinion of the working group
is, working group chairs can poll the working group to find out. As with any other
consensus question, the form in which it is asked can make a difference. In
particular, a general 'yes/no' question often is not as helpful as asking supporters
and detractors of a draft to provide their reasons, not merely their preferences. In
effect, this treats the matter of consensus as an on-going discussion. Ideally, that
can produce changes in the document or in participant views, or both.</t>
</section>
<section title="Questions Considered in This Document">
<t>The purpose of this document is to discuss the criteria and sequence typically
followed when adopting and developing a formal IETF working group document.
Therefore, this document considers the following questions that are particularly
relevant to working group chairs who are charged with running the process: <list>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>How do working group chairs decide which drafts to adopt and when? </t>
<t>Is it necessary to poll the working group explicitly, and what does a
working group poll look like?</t>
<t>How do working group chairs make the decision?</t>
<t>What are the process steps the working group will choose to use, for an
I-D to become a WG I-D?</t>
<t>Are there any special cases?</t>
<t>Can a document be created as a WG I-D from scratch?</t>
<t>How can competing drafts be handled?</t>
<t>Can an Individual I-D be under the care of a WG?</t>
</list></t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Adoption Sequence">
<section title="Typical Steps">
<t>To adopt a new working group document, the chairs often: <list>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Inform the working group of the intent.</t>
<t>Obtain working group rough consensus.</t>
<t>Choose document editors.</t>
<t>Pre-approve the document as an Internet Draft, using <xref
target="Approval" />.</t>
<t>Tell the editors to submit the -00 version of the document.</t>
<t>Enjoy the ensuing working group discussion...</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Criteria for Adoption">
<t>No formal specification for working group 'adoption' of a draft exists; the current
document is meant to provide a description of common activities for this, but again
note that it is not normative.</t>
<t>There are some basic considerations when deciding to adopt a draft:<list>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a
document?</t>
<t>Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?</t>
<t>Is the purpose of the draft sufficiently clear?</t>
<t>What are the process or technical objections to pursuing the draft?</t>
<t>If not already in scope, is a simple modification to the charter feasible
and warranted?</t>
<t>Does the draft carry known intellectual property rights issues?</t>
<t>Is there strong working group support for working on the draft?</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
<t>Some specifically-inappropriate criteria include:<list>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Working group support is not required to be unanimous.</t>
<t>The writing quality is not required to be ready-for-publication, although
writing quality can be a problem and does need explicit attention;
certainly a new working group draft needs to at least pass <xref
target="IDNITS" />.</t>
<t>The document is not required to already contain a complete and/or
sufficient solution, although of course this can be helpful.</t>
<t>The position of the working group chairs, concerning the draft, has no
special authority.</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="REMINDER: ">Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is
owned by the working group and can be changed however the working group
decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working group charter.
Absent explicit agreement, adopting a document does not automatically mean that
the working group has agreed to all of its content. So a working group (or its
charter) might dictate retaining some or all of a draft's content, technical
details, or the like. However in the absence of such constraints, it is worth
having the adoption process include a sub-process of gathering working group
concerns about the existing draft and flagging them explicitly.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="authedit" title="Authors/Editors">
<t>Document authors/editors are chosen by the working group chairs. Authors are described
in Section 6.3 of <xref target="RFC2418" />. <list style="hanging">
<t hangText="NOTE: ">The distinction between an 'author' and an 'editor' is, at
best, subjective. A simplistic rule of thumb is that editors tend to do the
mechanics of incorporating working group detail, whereas authors tend to create
the detail, subject to working group approval. That is, one role is more active
with the content and the other is more passive. It is a responsibility of the
working group chairs to ensure that document authors make modifications in accord
with working group rough consensus. Authors who demonstrate sustained
misunderstanding of their authority are subject to replacement...</t>
</list></t>
<t>For existing documents that are being adopted by a working group, there is a special
challenge in the selection of document editors: The document has already had editors. So
the question is whether the same people are appropriate for continuing the task? Often
the answer is yes, but this is not automatic. The process within an IETF working group
can be quite different from the process that created previous versions. This well might
make it appropriate to select one or more new editors, either as additions to the editor
team or as primary pen-holders (effectively re-classifying the previous team as
co-authors). </t>
<t>If the original editors are to continue in their role, the chairs might want to ensure
that the editors understand IETF working group process; it is likely to be quite
different from the process that developed earlier versions of the document. If
additional or new editors are assigned, the transition can be discussed, including its
reasons; this is best done as quickly as possible.</t>
</section>
<section title="Document History and Stability">
<t>Working group charters often specify an initial set of existing documents to use. The
basis of that use can vary widely. Documents that are used as 'input' or as 'a basis' to
the working group's efforts. In some cases, a charter essentially declares an existing
document to be the formal start of a working group document. The details can vary quite
a bit over the life of a working group, concerning adoption of drafts and the
constraints on changes made to them. </t>
<t>Absent charter restrictions, a working group is free to create new documents. It is not
required that all drafts start outside the working group. Of course, the criteria for
brand new documents are likely to be the same as for those imported into the working
group with the additional and obvious requirement that the working group chairs will
need to appoint authors/editors before any work can progress. Note that from time to
time a working group will form a design team to produce the first version of a working
group draft. Design teams are discussed in Section 6.5 of <xref target="RFC2418" />.</t>
<t>Work that is brought to the IETF has different levels of completeness and maturity, and
different timings for having achieved those levels. When the IETF charters a group and
includes existing material, the charter can cast the role of that material in very
different ways: <list style="symbols">
<t>It can treat it as no more than a set of ideas, to be used or ignored;</t>
<t>It can treat it as a basic design, with all of the actual details still fluid;</t>
<t>It can treat it as a rough draft, subject to extensive revision;</t>
<t>It can treat it as a solid specification that merely needs review, refinement and
maybe enhancement;</t>
<t>It can treat it as a deployed technology that is best served by trying to protect
its installed base, but with some tolerance for changes that affect
interoperability;</t>
<t>It can treat it as a deployed technology for which protecting the installed base
is essential, including retention of core interoperability.</t>
</list>These suggest a wide range of possible constraints on working group effort.</t>
<t>Equally, those bringing technology to the IETF do so at different points in the maturity
of their work. Any of the above might make sense, depending upon that maturity, the
extent of deployment, and the timing of the investment made by the installed base.</t>
<t>When technology is brand new, with at most some prototypes done as proofs of concept,
then significant changes to the spec won't necessarily add much to the development and
deployment costs. On the other extreme, a mature, deployed market can be almost cavalier
about the freedom of a working group charter, because its base of experience is
sufficient to hold sway over a working group that gets silly: that is, the installed
base is sufficiently well-established and unified in what it will accept, so that it's
leverage is clear. </t>
<t>However, immediately after the development investment is made -- and especially when
there has been considerable initial deployment, but still room for quite a bit more --
the installed and potential base will not take kindly to disruptive standards work that
undermines their recent investment; worse, such work can seriously damage further
adoption.</t>
<t>In reflecting upon the basis for adopting an existing draft, it is important to consider
the document's place in its lifecycle and the needs of any installed base when deciding
on the constraints to impose on document development.</t>
</section>
<section title="Some Issues">
<section title="Individual I-Ds Under WG Care">
<t>Although rare, a working group sometimes facilitates a draft, but does not own it. These are
"individual" drafts, with a common filename convention of the working group name
following the personal name: <figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[draft-<lastname>-<wgname>...]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Typically such documents are subject to normal working group process. However
ownership stays with the original author and the document is not formally working
group output. In these situations, when publication is requested, it might be the
case that the working group has consensus that the document will be published as an
RFC, but not have agreement about the text in the document.</t>
<t>Of course, the author and the working group might decide to change the document's status, such as making it a formal working group draft, or publish it along a different RFC stream or submission path.</t>
<t>This is a rare situation and working group chairs can be assured that the Area
Directors will want to understand why the document could not be adopted and owned by
the working group.</t>
</section>
<section title="Competing Drafts">
<t>Engineering for interesting topics often produces competing, interesting proposals.
The reasons can be technical aesthetics, engineering tradeoffs, architectural
differences, company economics and the like. Although it is far more comfortable to
entertain only one proposal, a working group is free to pursue more than one. Often
this is necessary until a clear preference develops. Sometimes, multiple versions are
formally published, absent consensus among the alternatives.</t>
<t>It is appealing to ask authors of competing proposals to find a way to merge their
work. Where it makes sense to do this, it can produce a single, strong specification.
On the other hand, some differences cannot be resolved and attempting a merge can
produce a weaker result. <xref target="Heli-Sub" /> Some would argue that this is the
more common outcome. At the least, detailed discussions to merge are better held in
private than amidst the dynamics of an open working group mailing list. The working
group has ultimate authority to approve any decisions, but it is not required that it
be involved in all the discussions.</t>
<t>Various management efforts can facilitate the handling of competing proposals. Some
examples include: <list>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Develop a requirements document that is independent of specific
proposals; this can highlight features that are deemed essential, from
those that are of secondary importance, and facilitate a discussion about
features without reference to specific proposals.</t>
<t>Develop a comparison table of the proposals; this can aid understanding
of their differences.</t>
<t>Discuss the relative importance and effects of having one proposal,
versus multiple; this can focus people's efforts at compromise and
encourage a willingness to choose a single proposal.</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
<t>The problem of competing drafts can be particularly painful when it arises in either
of two circumstances: <list>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>If a second proposal appears as a new draft, just as the chairs were
ready to poll the working group on adoption of the draft containing the
first proposal, then the authors of the first proposal could feel
affronted. It does not follow that the second draft was written to be
difficult or derail the first: it might even include better ideas. So it
is best not to disregard it. However, automatically asking the authors to
merge their work will not necessarily produce a more solid solution and
will not guarantee faster progress. This situation will be a judgement
call in each case, and it might help to ask the working group for their
opinion: shall the working group adopt one document as a starting point
and fold in the ideas from the second under the control of consensus, or
shall the working group wait until the authors of both documents have
reached agreement? </t>
<t>If the working group has already adopted an I-D on a specific topic, the
posting of a new individual I-D on the same topic could be seen as an
attack on the working group processes or decisions. However, posting an
I-D is often a good way to put new ideas into concrete form and into the
public domain for consideration and discussion. The working group chairs
will want to encourage the working group to consider the new proposal.
Shall it be adopted and entirely replace the current working group draft?
Shall the new ideas be incorporated into the work of the working group
through the normal editorial process? Shall the working group adopt a
second competing solution? Or shall the new draft be rejected and not
adopted by the working group?</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>Beyond the credibility of the IETF, this document raises no security concerns.</t>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>This draft was developed from an IETF tutorial given by A. Farrel. L. Anderson
contributed useful comments.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="References - Informative">
<reference anchor="Farrel-Chairs">
<front>
<title>What is a Working Group ID (and when to adopt one)</title>
<author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel">
<organization>Huawei</organization>
<address>
<email>adrian.farrel@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="July" year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Web" value="http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC2418">
<front>
<title abbrev="IETF Guidelines">IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures</title>
<author fullname="Scott Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner">
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<country>MA</country></postal>
<phone>+1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email></address>
</author>
<date month="September" year="1998" />
<area>General</area>
<keyword>Internet Engineering Task Force</keyword>
<abstract>
<t> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has responsibility for developing
and reviewing specifications intended as Internet Standards. IETF activities
are organized into working groups (WGs). This document describes the guidelines
and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. It also
describes the formal relationship between IETF participants WG and the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the basic duties of IETF participants,
including WG Chairs, WG participants, and IETF Area Directors. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="25" />
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2418" />
<format octets="62857" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt" type="TXT" />
<format octets="77010" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2418.html"
type="HTML" />
<format octets="62422" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2418.xml"
type="XML" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4677">
<front>
<title>The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
Force</title>
<author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman">
<organization />
</author>
<author fullname="S. Harris" initials="S." surname="Harris">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="September" year="2006" />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and Working Groups,
discusses organizations related to the IETF, and introduces the standards
process. It is not a formal IETF process document but instead an informational
overview. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4677" />
<format octets="127383" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4677.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="ID-Info">
<front>
<title>Checklist for Internet-Drafts (IDs) submitted for RFC publication</title>
<author fullname="B. Wijnen" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Wijnen" />
<date day="12" month="May" year="2009" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IESG" value="https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="IDNITS">
<front>
<title>IDNITS Tool</title>
<author>
<organization>IETF</organization>
</author>
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IETF" value="https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="ID-Guidelines">
<front>
<title>Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts</title>
<author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." role="editor" surname=" Housley">
<organization>Vigil Security</organization>
</author>
<date day="7" month="December" year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IETF" value="http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Approval">
<front>
<title>IETF Internet-Draft Initial Version Approval Tracker</title>
<author>
<organization>IESG</organization>
</author>
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IETF"
value="https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_init_rev_approval.cgi" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Heli-Sub">
<front>
<title>On Helicopters and Submarines</title>
<author fullname="M. Rose" initials="M." surname="Rose">
<organization>Invisible Worlds</organization>
</author>
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="ACM Queue - Instant Messaging" value="Vol 1, Issue 8, Page 10" />
<seriesInfo name="ACM" value="http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=966726" />
</reference>
</references>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>This document was based on a presentation made at an IETF Working Group Chairs lunch.
<xref target="Farrel-Chairs" />)</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:27:32 |