Re: Re: MARID back from the grave?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]