Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have never been comfortable with telling a WG that it is required to
> use a particular document or work of a particular design teamThat is not in RFC2418, and I've never seen it.
> I absolutely have seen closed WG meetings used as a way to abuse the
> process.
Well, you always have WG last call or IETF last call to comment.
The point here is that litigating the name of the process is pointless. The WG can work using a closed design team or an interim meeting, and then send it to the list. Presumably, they are only using either of these things to work on a pressing issue. I do agree that maybe sometimes interim meetings are actually design teams, and misnamed. But I don't think it matters.
thanks,
Rob
