On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:35 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/27/21 11:06 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > > I disagree. WGs have charters, which result in RFCs. During that > > process, they have consensus-based working drafts that are refined to > > meet their charter goals. That's an "adopted" draft. But it doesn't > > have to be based on a single individual draft, a working draft can be > > the result of merging earlier individual drafts, or can even originate > > as a WG draft without a preceding individual draft or drafts. But yes, > > working drafts do reflect WG consensus, and they have formal standing > > as such. > > emphatically disagree, and as said earlier I believe it is a Bad Idea to > give such draft more status than they deserve. I think "adopted" is entirely accurate, reasonable, and deserved. But I'm not sure why we should get too wrapped around the axle about that word. It would not bother me too much if personal drafts had a file name like d1-lastname-wgname-... and adopted drafts had a name like d2-ietf-wgname-... It would even be shorter. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > Keith
