Re: Status of this memo

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 28/04/2021 05:13, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 07:10:56PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>>
>> Anyway I think it's probably better to not think of "change control" as
>> if nobody else but the WG has the right to edit the original document
>> (which is clearly not the case), but instead to think in terms of which
>> document the WG is going to collaborate on and which it intends to
>> eventually submit for an IETF Last Call. And the WG is free to change
>> its mind about that.
>
> AFAICT, basically everyone other than you in the thread is using "the WG
> has change control" to mean "for the document that the WG is going to
> collaborate on [and intends to eventually submit for an IETF Last Call],
> the WG decides what goes in that document".  That is generally going to be
> "the document named draft-ietf-wgname-foo" (though not always, of course),
> and I thought that the definite article was implied by the process of WG
> adoption.
>
> In particular, if we avoid using the phrase "change control" as shorthand
> for anything, I'm seeing very little actual disagreement in this thread.
> I see a lot of people saying that for the document (or documents) the WG
> intends to do things with, the WG calls the shots, and the editor of the WG
> document has some flexibility about how to do that given the nature of the
> direction from the WG.  I see approximately nobody saying that once the WG
> has adopted a document, the author of the original document cannot continue
> to do what they like with the original document('s contents).
>
> Am I missing something?

Only a reference to RFC7221 which uses the phrase 'IETF Working Group 
revision control' rather than change control.  I think that every other 
point in this thread is covered in the RFC,

Tom Petch

> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
> .
>