On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:02 AM Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > 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. I agree. Indeed, becoming a WG draft represents a fundamental change in the status and process for a draft in that before that the author(s) can change the body of the draft however they want and add/remove authors as they want but after it is a WG draft the WG is in charge of the content and the WG Chairs how the power to appoint and remove authors/editors. Thus it is reasonable and beneficial that there be some difference in marking and/or draft name between these two cases. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > Thanks, > Lars
