Re: Status of this memo

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:02 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-4-27, at 15:40, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The very notion of "adoption" of a draft by the IETF (or at least by a working group) is a Bad Idea, as it tends to indicate an assumed direction for the WG that isn't yet reflected by a deep understanding of the draft or its implications, and makes it harder for a WG to change direction.
>
> I'm not sure I follow. WGs have adopted I-Ds for decades; it's the usual way in which the IETF works, and is what causes I-D names to change from draft-yourname to draft-ietf.
>
> This process is central to our way of working; we even commissioned specific datatracker functionality for it ten years ago (RFC6174) and discussed the common practice in RFC7221.

I agree. Indeed, becoming a WG draft represents a fundamental change
in the status and process for a draft in that before that the
author(s) can change the body of the draft however they want and
add/remove authors as they want but after it is a WG draft the WG is
in charge of the content and the WG Chairs how the power to appoint
and remove authors/editors. Thus it is reasonable and beneficial that
there be some difference in marking and/or draft name between these
two cases.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]

> Thanks,
> Lars