On 4/27/21 8:47 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
I did say "tends to indicate an assumed direction", so it wasn't an absolute statement.On 2021-04-27, at 14:40, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The very notion of "adoption" of a draft by the IETF (or at least by a working group) is a Bad Idea, as it tends to indicate an assumed direction for the WGWGs differ, so an absolute statement about all WGs like this is always wrong.
For some WGs, establishing that focus is exactly what is needed. Obviously, even then, the focus on a set of WG drafts is subject to change, as is any specific draft and the direction incorporated in there.
I agree that some WGs are better off starting early with some assumed draft to focus on, even if they change it later. Where I disagree is that it's "obvious" to the WG participants that the WG is free to change its mind and that alternative proposals are still welcome. IMO, hosting non "adopted" drafts at a separate domain would reinforce the perception that the "adopted" drafts are already endorsed by the WG or IETF, and IMO this would be a Bad Thing.
Keith
