Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft

[Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>]

On 02/12/2012 21:52, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
>> are willing to support it as RFC.
> i thought that was wglc.  but i am a dinosaur.
>
> randy
    What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the
path of the bad idea to become RFC somehow or at least to waste a lot of
time fighting against it.

    I have seen a lot of I+D that are discussed a lot and are never
accepted as WG items (even though the problem is in scope of the
charter) because it is a bad proposal according to consensus. Eventually
the idea dies. Which in my opinion is good (unless we accepted to
document why it is bad, but that is another history).

    Accepting an I+D as WG item just "because we need to discuss the
topic" or because of "a more structured discussion" would have brought a
lot of rejected ideas as WG documents.


Regards,
as