On 28-Apr-21 06:08, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Martin, > > A draft reflects WG consensus when it has the name draft-ietf-wg-.... (that's the definition of that name). Before then, it's just a proposal from one or more individuals. Actually, no. It only reflects consensus to work on the topic with draft in question as a basis. It does not imply that the WG will reach rough consensus on the draft. It is not uncommon for adopted drafts to fade away, fail to reach WG Last Call, or fail to reach WG consensus after WG Last Call. As Martin says downthread, it's only when the draft is sent off to the AD that we can be sure that the WG chairs have called consensus. Brian > > It's the document editor and WG chair's jobs to make sure that WG drafts do in fact reflect WG status. If a WG participant disagrees with the editor and the chair that the draft reflects WG consensus, they can appeal to an AD or the IESG as a whole. > > This is from RFC 2418: > > 6.3. Document Editor > > Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of > documents, that capture the results of the group's work. A working > group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor > for a particular document. The Document Editor is responsible for > ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the > decisions that have been made by the working group. > > As a general practice, the Working Group Chair and Document Editor > positions are filled by different individuals to help ensure that the > resulting documents accurately reflect the consensus of the working > group and that all processes are followed. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:07 PM Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:martin.vigoureux@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Andy, > > quick question, if I may: > > Le 2021-04-27 à 17:06, Andrew G. Malis a écrit : > > Keith, > > > > 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. > At which point in time to do they reflect WG consensus, according to you? > As examples to illustrate my ask: From day 1 or only at "Publication > Requested" time, or some other time, if any specific one? > > -m > > > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:27 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > <mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: > > > > On 4/27/21 10:17 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > >>> There was also a suggestion to add something to the boilerplate text of individual I-Ds along the lines of "anyone can submit an I-D; they have no formal standing until they are adopted by a group in the IETF or IRTF". Would that provide additional clarification? > >> Oh yes, PLEASE! > > > > concur. Except get rid of the "adopted" bit, because even assuming > > that "adoption" of a draft by a WG is useful, it doesn't imply any > > kind of broad support from the organization. Just say that the > > existence of a draft does not mean it has any formal standing with > > IETF or any other organization. Documents with formal standing in > > IETF are published as RFCs. > > > > Keith > > > > >
