On Feb 27, 2005, at 1:23 AM, John Loughney wrote:
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.
IMHO, charters should not be bound to specific documents. It's one
thing to say "WG X will produce a document describing protocol Y",
quite another to say "WG X shall publish
draft-ietf-x-joe's-specification-for-y". It's up to the WG, not the
ADs, to decide which specification to submit to IESG to meet a
particular charter requirement. And WGs should be able to change their
minds about such things.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf