On 28/05/2013 21:32, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for publication. > > We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative definition of process) and would like your input. > > What is not clear? > What have we got wrong? I haven't read the draft yet, and *before* I do so, I'd like to express some doubt whether we should even informally describe this using the word "process". It seems to me that it's each WG's prerogative how it does this; it has no impact on the standards process as a whole. The word "adopt" doesn't even occur in RFC 2418, and it is not used in the context of WG adoption in RFC 2026. In other words, I don't think this action is part of the standards process. It's WG folklore. Brian > How should we resolve the remaining editor notes? > > Thanks, > Adrian > (per pro Dave) > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt > > > . >