Hi Keith,
Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a contract for
what the working group will work on / develop. When a working group wants to
adopt a new draft, they need to have permission from the AD and may even need
to revise the charter to be able to adopt the work.
This, I think, shows a clear intent by the WG chair and the AD that a draft has
some merit and at least an informal commitment to progressing the document.
I don't see it as a binding contract, but it does imply that the draft should
progress.
John
From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Date: 2005/02/27 Sun AM 05:18:57 EET
To: kw2578 <john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)kolumbus(_dot_)fi>
CC: graham(_dot_)travers(_at_)bt(_dot_)com,
moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?
Graham,
You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF,
they will, most likely, become an RFC.
I hope not. When a WG agrees to consider a draft it should not be taken
as an assurance that the draft will be published as an RFC. Too many
WGs work far beyond their chartered deadlines because they haven't
finished all of their working drafts - often because those drafts turned
out to be bad ideas or not sufficiently well-understood or robust to
warrant standardization (or sometimes, even publication).
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf