In reading through the draft, particularly the section on questions for
WG adoption of a draft, I did not see the questions I consider most
pertinent:
Does the WG think this is a reasonable (preferably good) basis for
starting to work collectively on the deliverable?
(Apologies if it was there and I missed it.)
Another question many WGs have found useful is:
Are there enough people interested and willing to write and / or review
the document?
This is not the same as WG support for the document.
Yours,
Joel
PS: The chairs opinion on the technical content of the document ought to
be irrelevant as far as I can tell. On the other hand, detecting and
raising concerns if the document is badly written is probably part of
the chair's job.
On 5/28/2013 5:32 AM, Adrian Farrel 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