Hi, I'm sorry to come late to this draft. It's very useful but I have a few comments. > Working groups use this mechanism > for producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of [RFC2418] Perhaps this also needs to refer to Section 2.2 of [RFC2026] which is the basic description of I-Ds. > draft-ietf-<wgname>-... Maybe it's mentioned later, but I think a warning that this convention is not always followed would be useful. (If you doubt me, check draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy, a sipcore draft that I recently reviewed for Gen-ART.) > In formal terms, a working group raises and discusses each item of > document content. For difficult topics and/or difficult working > group dynamics, this is the required mode. It is laborious, but > diligent, and it validates progress at each step along the way. Excuse me if I describe this text as turgid; it's certainly hard to read. Does it mean the following? In theory, a working group considers each item in a document and possibly modifies it before approval. For difficult topics, or for cases where the working group is contentious, there is no alternative to discussing each item. This is a laborious process requiring great diligence, and it validates progress at each step along the way. > * Can an Individual I-D be under the care of a WG? How about adding * Can a WG I-D become an Individual I-D? > When there is an existing document and the chairs want to propose > adopting it as a new working group document There are two paths to this point: 1. The existing document was solicited by the WG, because it corresponds to an item in the WG charter, and the normal expectation is that the document will be adopted. 2. The existing document was unsolicited, and might even require a charter update. > Adoption, not approval: The document is not required to already > contain a complete and/or sufficient solution, although of > course this can be helpful. Also, adoption does not guarantee eventual publication as an RFC; the WG could later abandon the document. > 5.1. Individual I-Ds Under WG Care ... > Typically such documents are handled according to normal, internal > working group process management. However matters of ownership, > working group final approval, and the like are all subject to > negotiation amongst the document authors, working group and area > directors. I am not so sure about that "typically". In fact I'm confused by what you mean. If I write draft-carpenter-6man-foobar, and 6man is interested in it, it will end up as draft-ietf-6man-foobar. If 6man isn't interested in it, and I decide to pursue it, it's possible I will submit it to an AD, with or without the 6man chairs being helpful, or maybe I'll submit it to the Independent Series Editor. But I don't know what you mean about such a draft being handled *under its individual name* according to normal working group process management, unless it's been adopted but not renamed (like draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy). Regards Brian Carpenter