> > (a) As Lars-Erik points out - almost every one does WGLCs, > > but WGLCs are not a mandatory part of the standards-track > > process. Do we actually need to give WGs this freedom, > > especially for specifications that are (theoretically) > > coming out of the WG? > > I have yet to see a WG draft that did not receive a WGLC (or > two...). I don't see the value of worrying too much about > these oddities, or is there some philosophical objection to > WGLC in some WGs? Not that I know of, personally I think it had been natural to have it in our official process. If we think that WGLC is a relevant state to identify in the WG draft tracking tool, then we probably believe WGLC is part of our practical process, and should update the official one accordingly. Personally, I do not really see the point of identifying which drafts are in the last two weeks of their (in most cases) long development process in a WG, but others seem to find that relevant. Main point, having "our" tools identify WGLC as its own document state will give the impression that WGLC is part of the process, so either it is a bad idea to do that, or we should actually change the official process to mandatory include WGLC's. /L-E _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf