    Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Farrel
    Request for Comments: 7221                              Juniper Networks
    Category: Informational                                  D. Crocker, Ed.
    ISSN: 2070-1721                              Brandenburg InternetWorking
                                                                  April 2014

               Handling of Internet-Drafts by IETF Working Groups

    Abstract

       The productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as
       mandated by the working group's charter.  When a working group is
       ready to develop a particular document, the most common mechanism is
       for it to "adopt" an existing document as a starting point.  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 how a working group typically handles the formal documents
       that it targets for publication.

    Status of This Memo

       This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
       published for informational purposes.

       This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
       (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
       received public review and has been approved for publication by the
       Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
       approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
       Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

       Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
       and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
       http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7221.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 1]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       Copyright Notice

       Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
       document authors.  All rights reserved.

       This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
       Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
       (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
       publication of this document.  Please review these documents
       carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
       to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
       include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
       the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
       described in the Simplified BSD License.

    Table of Contents

       1. Introduction ....................................................2
          1.1. What Is a WG Draft? ........................................3
          1.2. Working Group Authority and Consensus ......................4
          1.3. Questions Considered in This Document ......................5
       2. Adoption Sequence ...............................................6
          2.1. Common Steps ...............................................6
          2.2. Criteria for Adoption ......................................6
       3. Authors/Editors .................................................8
       4. Document History and Stability ..................................8
       5. Some Issues for Consideration ..................................10
          5.1. Individual I-Ds under WG Care .............................10
          5.2. WG Drafts Can Become Individual Drafts ....................11
          5.3. Competing Drafts ..........................................11
       6. Security Considerations ........................................13
       7. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
       8. Informative References .........................................13

    1.  Introduction

       The productive output of an IETF working group (WG) is documents, as
       mandated by the working group's charter.  Working groups develop
       these documents 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 how a working group typically handles the formal
       documents that it targets for publication.  The discussion applies
       only to the IETF and does not cover IRTF groups, where practices vary
       widely.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 2]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       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.

       NOTE:  This document is intentionally non-normative.  It is meant as
          a guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of
          what is permissible.

    1.1.  What Is a WG Draft?

       Working group drafts are documents that are subject to IETF working
       group revision control, with advancement for publication as an RFC
       requiring rough consensus in the working group and then in the
       broader IETF.  Creation or adoption of a draft by a working group --
       as well as substantive changes to the document -- need to represent
       working group rough consensus.

       Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
       Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) [RFC2026] [ID-Info].  Working groups use this
       mechanism for producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of
       [RFC2418] and Section 6.3 of [Tao].  The common 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
       [ID-Guidelines].  That is:

                              draft-ietf-<wgname>-...

       In contrast, individual submissions are drafts being created and
       pursued outside of a working group, although a working group might
       choose to adopt the draft later, as discussed below.  Anyone is free
       to create an individual submission at any time.  Such documents are
       typically distinguished through the use of the author/editor's last
       name, in the style of:

                               draft-<lastname>-...

       (Also see Section 5.1 for an elaboration on this naming.)

       Responsibility for direct revision of a working group I-D is assigned
       to its editors and authors.  See Section 3 for discussion about their
       selection and role.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 3]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

    1.2.  Working Group Authority and Consensus

       A premise of the IETF is that, within a working group, it is the
       working group itself that has final authority over the content of its
       documents, within the constraints of the working group's charter.  No
       individual has special authority for the content.  The Chairs assign
       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.

       Other than for selection of document authors/editors, as discussed in
       Section 3, working group decision-making about document management is
       subject to normal IETF rough consensus rules.  Useful descriptions of
       this process for a working group are in Section 3.3 of [RFC2418] and
       Section 4.2 of [Tao].  Discussion of the nature of rough consensus
       can be found in [Consensus].

       In terms of the IETF's formal rough consensus processes, the working
       group explicitly develops, modifies, reviews, and approves document
       content, according to overt rough consensus.  For difficult topics
       and/or difficult working group dynamics, this laborious process
       really is essential.  Its diligence validates progress at each step
       along the way.  However, working groups often handle simpler matters
       more simply, such as allowing a Chair to assert the likely agreement
       and then merely call for objections.  Ultimately, the mode of working
       group decision-making is determined by the comfort and engagement of
       the working group with the way the decisions are being made.

       At times, a document author/editor can appear to have considerable
       authority over content, but this is (merely) for efficiency.  That
       is, the Chairs can permit authors and editors 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/
       editor 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.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 4]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       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 -- or of the decision under consideration -- to provide
       their reasons, not merely their preferences.  In effect, this treats
       the matter of consensus as an ongoing discussion.  Ideally, the
       discussion can produce changes in the document or in participant
       views, or both.

    1.3.  Questions Considered in This Document

       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:

       *  How do Working Group Chairs decide which drafts to adopt and when?

       *  Is it necessary to poll the working group explicitly, and what
          does a working group poll look like?

       *  How do Working Group Chairs make the decision?

       *  What are the process steps the working group will choose to use,
          for an I-D to become a WG I-D?

       *  Are there any special cases?

       *  Can a document be created as a WG I-D from scratch?

       *  How can competing drafts be handled?

       *  Can an individual I-D be under the care of a WG?

       *  Can a WG I-D become an individual I-D?

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 5]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

    2.  Adoption Sequence

    2.1.  Common Steps

       When there is interest in adopting a document as a new working group
       document, the Chairs often:

       1.  Remind current draft owners that they are transferring change
           control for the document to the IETF.  (This is a particularly
           significant point for a document covered by proprietary
           interests, because it typically entails a negotiation between the
           current owners and the IETF, including a formal agreement.)

       2.  Check for known IPR that needs to be disclosed, using some
           technique like those described in [RFC6702].

       3.  Obtain working group rough consensus.

       4.  Choose document editors.

       5.  Instruct authors to post the WG I-D.

       6.  Approve posting [Approval].

       7.  Ensure that the non-working group version of the draft is marked
           as being replaced by this working group version.

       8.  Encourage everyone to enjoy the ensuing working group
           discussion...

    2.2.  Criteria for Adoption

       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.

       There are some basic considerations when deciding to adopt a draft:

       *  Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a
          document?

       *  Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?

       *  Is the purpose of the draft sufficiently clear?

       *  Does the document provide an acceptable platform for continued
          effort by the working group?

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 6]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       *  What are the process or technical objections to adoption of the
          draft?

       *  Is the draft likely to be completed in a timely manner?

       *  Does the intended status of the document seem reasonable to the
          working group?

       *  If not already in scope, is a simple modification to the charter
          feasible and warranted?

       *  Does the draft carry known intellectual property rights issues?

       *  Is there strong working group support for working on the draft?

       Adoption has some basic pragmatics:

          Rough consensus:  Working group agreement to adopt is not required
             to be unanimous [RFC2418].

          Initial, not final:  The writing quality is not required to be
             "ready for publication", although writing quality can be a
             problem and does need explicit attention; although not
             mandatory, it is good practice to check whether a new working
             group draft passes [IDNITS].

          Adoption, not approval:  The document is not required to already
             contain a complete and/or sufficient solution, although of
             course this can be helpful.  Equally, adoption by a working
             group does not guarantee publication of the document as an RFC.

          Group, not Chairs:  Concerning the draft, the position of the
             Working Group Chairs has no special authority, except to assess
             working group consensus.

       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 explicitly
          dictate the basis for retaining, removing, or modifying 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.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 7]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

    3.  Authors/Editors

       Document authors/editors are chosen by the Working Group Chairs.
       Document editors are described in Section 6.3 of [RFC2418].  Authors
       and editors are described in [RFC-Auth-Ed].

       NOTE:  In this document, the terms 'author' and 'editor' are meant
          interchangeably.  Within the IETF, 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/editors are solely chosen by the Chairs
          -- although the views of the working group should be considered --
          and are subject to replacement for a variety of reasons, as the
          Chairs see fit.

       For existing documents that are being adopted by a working group,
       there is a special challenge in the selection of document editors.
       Because the document has already had editors, the question "Are the
       same people appropriate for continuing the task?" is asked.
       Sometimes 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 reclassifying the
       previous team as coauthors).

       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 soon as possible.

    4.  Document History and Stability

       Working group charters sometimes specify an initial set of existing
       documents to use as a basis of the working group's activities.  That
       'basis' can vary considerably, from simple input to working group
       discussion, all the way to an advanced draft adopted by the working
       group and subject only to minimal changes.  The role of a document
       should be explicitly stated in the charter.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 8]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       Within the scope of its charter, a working group is free to create
       new documents.  It is not required that all drafts start as the
       effort of an individual.  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 [RFC2418].

       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.
       It can treat it as:

       *  no more than a set of ideas, to be used or ignored;

       *  a basic design, with all of the actual details still fluid;

       *  a rough draft, subject to extensive revision;

       *  a solid specification that merely needs review, refinement, and
          maybe enhancement;

       *  a deployed technology that is best served by trying to protect its
          installed base, but with some tolerance for changes that affect
          interoperability;

       *  a deployed technology for which protecting the installed base is
          essential, including retention of core interoperability.

       These suggest a wide range of possible constraints on working group
       effort.  Technology is brought to the IETF at different points of
       maturity along its life cycle, and the nature of the technology can
       have widely varying utility in developing an Internet standard.

       When technology is brand new, with at most some prototypes done as
       proofs of concept, then significant changes to the specification will
       not necessarily add much to the development and deployment costs.
       However, when the technology is already part of a mature and
       extensive operational deployment, any changes that are incompatible
       are likely to be problematic for that market and can hinder adoption
       of the changes overall.  For example, immediately after the
       development investment is made -- and especially when there has been
       considerable initial deployment but there is still room for quite a
       bit more -- the installed and potential base might not take kindly to
       disruptive standards work that undermines their recent investment.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                     [Page 9]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       Conversely, even a deployed technology with a solid base might be
       inappropriate to deploy at Internet scale, and while a document
       specifying such a technology might serve as a good starting point on
       which to base a new specification, undermining of the deployed base
       might be completely appropriate.

       In reflecting upon the basis for adopting an existing draft and the
       way it will be used by the working group, it is important to consider
       the document's place in its life cycle, the needs of any installed
       base, and the applicability of the draft's technology, when deciding
       on the constraints to impose on document development.  It will all
       depend on the constraints of the charter and the analysis of the
       working group.

    5.  Some Issues for Consideration

    5.1.  Individual I-Ds under WG Care

       Sometimes, a working group facilitates a draft but does not own it or
       formally adopt it.  These are "individual" drafts [Individual].

       As noted in Section 1.1 and reinforced in [ID-Guidelines], the
       convention for identifying an I-D formally under the ownership of a
       working group is by following the naming convention:

                              draft-ietf-<wgname>-...

       By contrast, documents that are still under the control of their
       authors are known as "individual" I-Ds.  When these documents are
       intended for consideration by a specific working group, the
       convention is that the document uses the naming convention as
       follows, where the second element is the last name of one of the
       principal authors.

                           draft-<lastname>-<wgname>...

       Having the working group name following the personal name allows
       tools to associate these drafts with the working group, even though
       the filename identifies them as the work of individuals.

       The working group can choose to apply any of its normal, internal
       working group process management mechanisms to an individual I-D.
       However, matters of ownership, working group final approval, and the
       like are all subject to negotiation amongst the document authors,
       working group, and Area Directors.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                    [Page 10]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       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.

    5.2.  WG Drafts Can Become Individual Drafts

       A working group is not obligated to retain documents it has adopted.
       Sometimes working group efforts conclude that a draft is no longer
       appropriate for working group effort.  If a working group drops a
       draft, then anyone is permitted to pursue it as an Individual or
       Independent Submission, subject to the document's existing copyright
       constraints.

    5.3.  Competing Drafts

       Engineering for interesting topics often produces competing,
       interesting proposals.  The reasons can be technical aesthetics,
       engineering trade-offs, 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.

       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.  The detailed discussions to merge
       are often better held in a design team than amidst the dynamics of an
       open working group mailing list.  The working group has ultimate
       authority over any decisions, but it is not required that it be
       involved in all the discussions.

       On the other hand, some differences cannot be resolved, and
       attempting a merge can produce a weaker result.  An example of this
       problem of conflicting design goals is discussed in [Heli-Sub],
       noting:

          "Helicopters are great, and so are submarines.  The problem is
          that if you try to build one vehicle to perform two fundamentally
          different jobs, you're going to get a vehicle that does neither
          job well."

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                    [Page 11]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       Various management efforts can facilitate the handling of competing
       proposals.  Some examples include:

       *  Developing a requirements document that is independent of specific
          proposals; this can highlight features that are deemed essential
          and distinguish them from features that are of secondary
          importance, and can facilitate a discussion about features without
          reference to specific proposals.

       *  Developing a comparison table of the proposals; this can aid
          understanding of their differences.

       *  Discussing 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.

       The problem of competing drafts can be particularly painful when it
       arises in either of two circumstances:

       *  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?

       *  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, for public 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?

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                    [Page 12]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

    6.  Security Considerations

       Beyond the credibility of the IETF, this document raises no security
       concerns.

    7.  Acknowledgements

       This document was developed from an IETF tutorial given by A. Farrel
       at an IETF Working Group Chairs lunch [Farrel-Chairs].  L. Anderson
       contributed useful comments.

    8.  Informative References

       [Approval] IETF, "IETF Internet-Draft Initial Version Approval
                  Tracker", (IETF Datatracker),
                  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/
                  cgi-bin/wg/wg_init_rev_approval.cgi>.

       [Consensus]
                  Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", Work
                  in Progress, April 2014.

       [Farrel-Chairs]
                  Farrel, A., "What is a Working Group ID (and when to adopt
                  one)", (IETF 78 WG chairs lunch Material), July 2010,
                  <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#>.

       [Heli-Sub]
                  Rose, M., "On Helicopters and Submarines", ACM Queue -
                  Instant Messaging, Vol. 1, Issue 8, Page 10,
                  <http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=966726>.

       [ID-Guidelines]
                  Housley, R., Ed., "Guidelines to Authors of Internet-
                  Drafts", December 2010,
                  <http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt>.

       [ID-Info]  Wijnen, B., Ed., "Checklist for Internet-Drafts (IDs)
                  submitted for RFC publication", May 2009,
                  <https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html>.

       [IDNITS]   IETF, "IDNITS Tool", 2013,
                  <https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/>.

       [Individual]
                  IESG, "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents",
                  March 2007, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
                  ad-sponsoring-docs.html>.

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                    [Page 13]

    RFC 7221                 Handling of I-Ds by WGs              April 2014

       [RFC-Auth-Ed]
                  RFC Editor, "RFC Editorial Guidelines and Procedures --
                  Author Overload", 2014,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist>.

       [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
                  Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

       [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
                  Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

       [RFC6702]  Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with
                  Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules",
                  RFC 6702, August 2012.

       [Tao]      Hoffman, P., Ed., "The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to
                  the Internet Engineering Task Force", 2012,
                  <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

    Authors' Addresses

       Adrian Farrel
       Juniper Networks

       EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk

       Dave Crocker (editor)
       Brandenburg InternetWorking
       675 Spruce Drive
       Sunnyvale, CA  94086
       USA

       Phone: +1.408.246.8253
       EMail: dcrocker@bbiw.net

    Farrel & Crocker              Informational                    [Page 14]