On 4/27/21 9:01 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2021-4-27, at 15:40, 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 WG that isn't yet reflected by a deep understanding of the draft or its implications, and makes it harder for a WG to change direction.
I'm not sure I follow. WGs have adopted I-Ds for decades; it's the usual way in which the IETF works, and is what causes I-D names to change from draft-yourname to draft-ietf.
I'm aware of this, and it has bothered me for many years. It's a
dubious practice that we should not further reinforce. I've seen too
many groups decide to "adopt" a draft, with little discussion, based
only on the appearance of support for the draft by the chairs, when it
was clear that most participants (even those in favor of adoption)
hadn't even read it.
This process is central to our way of working; we even commissioned specific datatracker functionality for it ten years ago (RFC6174) and discussed the common practice in RFC7221.
The fact that there's datatracker support for it does not mean it's
central to our way of working, or that it should be.
Keith
('The most damaging phrase in the language is "We've always done it that
way"' - RAdm. Grace Murray Hopper)
