On Feb 27, 2005, at 1:23 AM, John Loughney wrote:
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.
IMHO, charters should not be bound to specific documents. It's one thing to say "WG X will produce a document describing protocol Y", quite another to say "WG X shall publish draft-ietf-x-joe's-specification-for-y". It's up to the WG, not the ADs, to decide which specification to submit to IESG to meet a particular charter requirement. And WGs should be able to change their minds about such things.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf