ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> (Creating an IETF Working Group Draft) to Informational RFC

2014-01-06 10:12:32
Hi Dave,
At 10:43 05-01-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
I'm not sure how to have the text make this point more clearly in the draft.

Thanks for the explanation.  I am okay with no changes.

You're the third person to note this.  I think that counts as consensus...

:-)

I believe working groups often do things like adding a document, or splitting a document into two or even combining documents, without changing their charter. I guess I've understood the essential question for changing the charter to be when the substance of the group's work is changed.

To the extent that a scenario, of the type you describe, causes debate within a working group, I would think that it's usually healthy for the group, since it can produce better clarity about the group's work.

I'm not sure a document like the current draft should seem to be more precise on this than it currently is. In other words, yes, the controversy/confusion you cite happens, but we probably should not change the current draft to affect that.

I am okay with the above.

hmmm. yeah. Strange wording choice, especially since as you note the phrase is a formal term of art. No memory of what produced that wording. I think better wording would be:

      However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put
      new ideas into concrete form, for public
      consideration and discussion."

The (above) wording is fine.

The paragraph is meant to counter-act the reaction people sometimes have, that posting an alternative draft is automatically a bad thing, by noting that it can be a valid form of commenting on an existing, other draft.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>