On 28/05/2013 15:36, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
It is difficult to read, because I am expecting a process and find
something else,
I started to read, but got confused (stoped reading), why you are
titling it as creating WG-draft and mentioning the adoption into the
document. I understand that the creating first is *individual-draft*
not *WG-draft*,
Incorrect, the first incarnation of a draft can be a WG draft. The only
requirement is that the chairs conclude that the existence such a draft
has WG consensus.
the adoption happens after the creation of individual draft. If
creating is WG creation, then it is already adopted as *idea* not
*draft*, and then draft-00 is the WG-draft.
I don't see the process clear at all, I maybe missing something,
Yes you are.
Stewart
AB
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
<mailto:adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>> wrote:
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the
process and considerations for creating formal working group
drafts that are targeted for publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and
concerns associated with this part of the process. We are
targeting this as Informational (i.e. commentary on existing
process, not new normative definition of process) and would like
your input.
What is not clear?
What have we got wrong?
How should we resolve the remaining editor notes?
Thanks,
Adrian
(per pro Dave)
[1]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html