Subject: Document not adopted: what is the right next state ?

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:00:09 +0100

Hi everyone,

I've seen that the datatracker has a flag to indicate a draft that is 
"Polled for WG adoption but not adopted". This has been discussed on 
this list in the past.

My question is : additionally to setting this flag, what is the right 
state in which should be put a document that was polled for adoption but 
not adopted ? and is this at the hand of WG chairs ?

Reading rfc6174 leads me to believe that the document should be moved 
off the IETF stream, and thus to think that there is no datatracker 
action I can take to do it myself as chair.   Is there a best way to 
proceed than ask the secretariat to move it off IETF stream ?

Best,

-Thomas

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:16:57 -0500

It's probably a good idea to leave it in the "polled for adoption" state so that other working group chairs who are approached know that it has already been considered somewhere.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:17:00 -0500

It is possible that an AD will choose to do a LC to the whole IETF. so it should not automatically move off the IETF stream.

Russ

On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Thomas Morin wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I've seen that the datatracker has a flag to indicate a draft that is "Polled for WG adoption but not adopted". This has been discussed on this list in the past.
> 
> My question is : additionally to setting this flag, what is the right state in which should be put a document that was polled for adoption but not adopted ? and is this at the hand of WG chairs ?
> 
> Reading rfc6174 leads me to believe that the document should be moved off the IETF stream, and thus to think that there is no datatracker action I can take to do it myself as chair.   Is there a best way to proceed than ask the secretariat to move it off IETF stream ?
> 
> Best,
> 
> -Thomas
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:25 +0000

On 05/03/2015 14:00, Thomas Morin wrote:
> state in which should be put a document that was polled for adoption 
> but not adopted ? and is this at the hand of WG chairs ?
>

Thomas,

Is that not accepted as in: not yet, or not ever, since those are two 
different cases.

Stewart

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:35:28 -0500

In addition, it may well be that it failed adoption, but the WG Chairs 
believe that the working group should discuss it more and that a future 
version will be reconsidered.  Equally, it may be that the chairs 
believe that the WG is done with the document.  So the right next state 
is not a fixed value.

I would hope that recording comments so that other chairs or ADs know 
the history is not done by leaving it in a pending state.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:14:47 -0600

> Is that not accepted as in: not yet, or not ever, since those are two

I think it's open to debate whether it's a flaw or a feature, but the
IETF has no process to say "not ever." Every decision I've ever seen
taken about whether to take on work has resolved to "yes" or "not yet."

/a

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:30:31 +0000

I guess I agree with you, but I've certainly seen some pretty negative "not yet"s, particularly in the lifetime of SIP.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Adam Roach
> Sent: 05 March 2015 16:15
> To: [email-masked]; Thomas Morin; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Document not adopted: what is the right next state ?
> 
> I think it's open to debate whether it's a flaw or a feature, 
> but the IETF has no process to say "not ever." Every decision 
> I've ever seen taken about whether to take on work has 
> resolved to "yes" or "not yet."
> 
> /a
> 
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:43:03 -0800

On 3/5/2015 8:14 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> IETF has no process to say "not ever." 

That was intentional, though perhaps also misleading.

When we first formulated the set of possible AD responses to a submitted
draft, we explicitly worried that "Discuss" sounded more promising than
some drafts warranted.  However the feeling in the IESG at the time was
that anything more final would not be appropriately collegial.  I think
we also thought anything stronger would not be tolerated...

Of course, that was an IETF community that was rather more coherent and
forceful -- and far less deferential to 'authority' -- than we have today.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:07:19 +0100

> It's probably a good idea to leave it in the "polled for adoption" state so that other working group chairs who are approached know that it has already been considered somewhere.

Well the "polled but not adopted" tag takes care of that already, right?

-Thomas

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:11:03 +0100

Hi Stewart,

> Is that not accepted as in: not yet, or not ever, since those are two

They are different indeed.
We need a way to address the "not ever" case -- and moving a draft out 
of IETF stream does not prevent it from going back into IETF stream by 
making a new call for adoption, right ?

-Thomas

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:19:10 -0500

> Well the "polled but not adopted" tag takes care of that already, right?

Perhaps so.   That's a refinement I haven't actually encountered, since a lot of these enhancements happened after I stopped being a working group chair. :)

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:43:19 -0500

Le 2015-03-05 12:11, Thomas Morin a écrit :
> We need a way to address the "not ever" case

Do we? Why would we want to prevent a WG from ever changing its mind?

Simon