... "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 actually believe it is useful to rename drafts when they are
adopted as WG documents. An individual draft is indeed the authors
own document, while a WG draft belongs to the WG, where the editor
do his work on behalf of the WG. This difference in itself is in my
opinion a good reason to create a new document when adopting new WG
work, even if the WG has agreed to use the content of an individual
draft as the basis for the -00 version of the new draft.
If one really want to trace the whole history of a work item,
including pre-work before it was actually adopted by the WG, this
can be found in the WG archives (at least this is how it should be),
and I can not believe it would be hard to find out such things.
It is clear that WGs have different practices, and I believe that is
a good thing. Therefore, I like the current freedom we have to
choose whether to name all WG drafts draft-*wg*-etc, or not.
However, I would like to see improvements for the submission deadlines,
e.g. like Tony suggested. To me, the extra new-WG-draft-approval-week
is in general a complete mystery.
/L-E
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf