In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria: - Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured discussion in the WG. Regards ::as On 02/12/2012 16:47, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2012 8:00 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> I led the discussion in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic. >> Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78# > > > Folks, > > There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended to > document common practice in the adoption of working group drafts: > >> Title: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft >> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption >> >> Abstract: >> The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as >> mandated by the working group's charter. Working groups develop >> these documents based on initial input of varying levels of maturity. >> An initial working group draft might be a document already in wide >> use, or it might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the workiing >> group, or it might represent any level of maturity in between. This >> document discusses the process of creating formal working group >> drafts that are targeted for publication. > > > > Although it is not intended for a standards-track or bcp publication, it > would be helpful to have discussion that moves the document to represent > good agreement among the community. > > d/ >