On 4/27/21 2:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Even expecting people to
repost existing I-Ds with new names to reflect WG "adoption" is dubious.
I think it is a great idea. It makes it clear whether the authors or
the WG is in charge of the draft.
The authors/editors are ALWAYS "in charge" of the draft until they earn
WG consensus via a WGLC, and subsequent IESG approval.
And we really don't want to "bless" drafts before they have community
consensus.
If you can't do anything about the contents of a draft other than send
arguments to the authors/editors, until it passes the IESG (which is
what shows it has IETF community consensus) then, to the first
approximation, the IETF will be totally paralyzed.
As far as I know, IETF has always worked that way. For none of the
RFCs that I've (co-)written has the responsibility of the
authors/editors to satisfy the WG and later the IESG, been taken away
prior to IESG approval.
(Having said that, it is possible that a WG could appoint a different
author or editors to a document that was submitted to that WG, and I
feel sure that some version of that has happened once and again.)
Keith
