Re: Status of this memo

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Keith, you seem to be4 asking for a change in established practice.  You 
apparently don't like the practice.
If you want it changed, you need to make an argument, get support, etc.
Objecting to a proposal because you want something else to be different 
seems rather odd.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/27/2021 11:34 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/27/21 11:06 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> 
>> I disagree. WGs have charters, which result in RFCs. During that 
>> process, they have consensus-based working drafts that are refined to 
>> meet their charter goals. That's an "adopted" draft. But it doesn't 
>> have to be based on a single individual draft, a working draft can be 
>> the result of merging earlier individual drafts, or can even originate 
>> as a WG draft without a preceding individual draft or drafts. But yes, 
>> working drafts do reflect WG consensus, and they have formal standing 
>> as such.
> 
> emphatically disagree, and as said earlier I believe it is a Bad Idea to 
> give such draft more status than they deserve.
> 
> Keith
> 
>