At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:27:54 +0100,
Dave Cridland wrote:
So you also want a different word to "shepherding"?
No. I want there not to be an implication that the development
of this document is a formal activity of the IETF.
If you're saying you think there ought to be a BOF, that's a
statement of opinion I can certainly sympathize with, although in
this case I think that would merely act as a way of losing momentum.
I don't see why you assert that a BOF->WG path is the only option,
though.
I didn't say that.
Either this is an individual submission, in which case it has no
formal standing and the only time the AD should be intervening
is when pub is requested, or it's not an individual submission,
in which case the correct process is for it to go through a WG.
What I'm objecting to is what appears to be the AD-sponsored
formation of some design team which has not gone through
the BOF->WG process.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf