AB is right (don’t be too surprised ;-) that establishing consensus and recording history is crucial. However, “the people” is ambiguous. The I-D, once adopted, belongs to the WG. The charter, once approved, belongs to the IETF. All changes should be recorded properly, and it is easy to add a note to the History tab in the Datatracker. And these days, it is also easy to add a pointer to an email thread. FWIW, I am just removing a draft in the MPLS WG. The draft is already in the publication queue with the AD, however, it appears that there is no interest in fixing the bugs or implementing the content. We have had several requests for input on the WG list, raised it on the agenda today, and held a formal consensus call to abandon the work. A From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun Hi Keith, As I agree with your reply to one suggestion for different subject (but similar related to drafts' submission and management), would like to know your opinion. IMHO the rule is that the people/WG who adopted the work they are the only that should remove it with consensus and also they should have clear discussion at least why they think to remove it. So IETF should know within its *History* the answer of WHY removed and should be with consensus proven. In my WG that I usually participate, we got an adopted work for long time but then removed (maybe in 2016) from charter for no known clear reason, so I would like to know what is expected in IETF future, and what do you think the usual rule/mechanism for removal of WG adopted draft. Best Regards, AB On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:22 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
