... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are (or that
working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt a draft as a
working group draft.
I see this as a bigger problem - some working groups that have more
work in individual drafts than in working group drafts, because they
wait until they have substantial consensus around drafts before even
adopting them, while other working groups create initial text as
working group drafts and then start wordsmithing from there - but
haven't found anyone else that was interested in formalizing what it
means when working groups adopt a draft.
My particular interest was as part of ICAR - I was thinking that
there's a blizzard of individual drafts, but if something is adopted
as a working group draft, it starts to absorb working group and AD
time (at a minumum), so this transition point might be a good
opportunity for a formal review.
But ICAR won't be worrying about this topic anytime in the foreseeable
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Tony Hansen" <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>; "John C Klensin"
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?
It's just a name.
Ietf mailing list