Hi Keith, Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a contract for what the working group will work on / develop. When a working group wants to adopt a new draft, they need to have permission from the AD and may even need to revise the charter to be able to adopt the work. This, I think, shows a clear intent by the WG chair and the AD that a draft has some merit and at least an informal commitment to progressing the document. I don't see it as a binding contract, but it does imply that the draft should progress. John > > From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 2005/02/27 Sun AM 05:18:57 EET > To: kw2578 <john.loughney@xxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: graham.travers@xxxxxx, moore@xxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave? > > > Graham, > > > > You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF, > > they will, most likely, become an RFC. > > I hope not. When a WG agrees to consider a draft it should not be taken > as an assurance that the draft will be published as an RFC. Too many > WGs work far beyond their chartered deadlines because they haven't > finished all of their working drafts - often because those drafts turned > out to be bad ideas or not sufficiently well-understood or robust to > warrant standardization (or sometimes, even publication). > > Keith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf