FWIW
Wearing my co-author of the Tao of the IETF hat...
At 11:53 PM +0100 9/10/07, <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com> wrote:
If the name of a draft contains ietf as the second component, or the
name of an IETF WG or the name of one of the IETF bodies (iab, irtf,
etc...) then it is a formal activity of the IETF.
True.
"Almost always true..."
Otherwise it is not.
False. To be specific: true almost all the time, but not always. (And,
yes, we muffed that in the Tao.) A draft with an indivual's name can be a
WG document.
... because a document that has been adopted by a working group, and renamed
with the working group name, can also be UNadopted by a working group, and
there is no requirement to rename the document so that it doesn't "look
like" a working group document. This happens most often when WGs are
shutting down, but it does happen.
A draft-ietf-* filename means that At Some Point the document was adopted by
a WG (or other IETF body), but does not mean that the document currently has
that status.
Steve Coya and Jeff Schiller always stressed in WG chair training (in the
late 1990s) that there was no relationship between a document name and
whether it was a WG document or not. This was entirely controlled by a flag
in a database somewhere (which is how the WG home pages are generated, and
how the page generator knows that the draft is a working group draft even if
it hasn't been renamed).
I know that did not change while Margaret Wasserman was doing the training,
and did not change while I was doing the training (both solo, and with
Paul). It had not changed as of a year ago, and if anyone has information
that it has changed in the past year, please share it.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf