On 28/05/2013 21:32, 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?
I haven't read the draft yet, and *before* I do so, I'd like to express
some doubt whether we should even informally describe this using the
word "process". It seems to me that it's each WG's prerogative how it
does this; it has no impact on the standards process as a whole. The
word "adopt" doesn't even occur in RFC 2418, and it is not used in
the context of WG adoption in RFC 2026.
In other words, I don't think this action is part of the standards process.
It's WG folklore.
Brian
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
.