I have heard that deadline extension does not require IESG review or
approval. Is that true? Are we talking about potential problems [just]
with our AD?
fundamentally, the history of the working group is not a good one. 3
BOFs, several missed milestones, etc.
on the plus side, some I-Ds did get to the IESG and the WG has been
relatively responsive in addressing the IESG's concerns.
however, it's out about "our AD". any AD has to ask themselves whether
it is worthwhile to keep extending the life of a WG that hasn't
published any RFCs but does want to keep expanding its scope.
working currency comes from producing credible drafts on schedule. we
aren't broke in that department, but we're hardly rich
either. accordingly, i personally would not want to ask the AD for an
extension, because i might not like the answer that comes back. markus
may have a different perspective, naturally.
the moral, of course, is that the WG should focus on meeting the
committments it already agreed to. everytime someone asks for something
more, we should ask whether that will be the one thing that will put us
over the line and on the chopping block. the way to avoid that, of
course, is to delay non-essential items to future work...
/mtr