> ... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are > (or that working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt > a draft as a working group draft. I actually believe it is useful to rename drafts when they are adopted as WG documents. An individual draft is indeed the authors own document, while a WG draft belongs to the WG, where the editor do his work on behalf of the WG. This difference in itself is in my opinion a good reason to create a new document when adopting new WG work, even if the WG has agreed to use the content of an individual draft as the basis for the -00 version of the new draft. If one really want to trace the whole history of a work item, including pre-work before it was actually adopted by the WG, this can be found in the WG archives (at least this is how it should be), and I can not believe it would be hard to find out such things. It is clear that WGs have different practices, and I believe that is a good thing. Therefore, I like the current freedom we have to choose whether to name all WG drafts draft-*wg*-etc, or not. However, I would like to see improvements for the submission deadlines, e.g. like Tony suggested. To me, the extra new-WG-draft-approval-week is in general a complete mystery. /L-E _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf