Re: Status of this memo

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:07 PM Martin Vigoureux
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> quick question, if I may:
>
> Le 2021-04-27 à 17:06, Andrew G. Malis a écrit :
> > Keith,
> >
> > 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.
>
> At which point in time to do they reflect WG consensus, according to you?
> As examples to illustrate my ask: From day 1 or only at "Publication
> Requested" time, or some other time, if any specific one?

I can give you my opinion, which may be different from Andy's:

When a draft is adopted, it means it is the Chair's judgement that
there is WG consensus that it is a reasonable point from which to
start. (Note: "a" reasonable point, not necessarily the only one.)
There can easily be one or more technical items in the draft that, at
the time of adoption, are clearly against WG consensus. (In which case
I think the best practice is to post a -00 with the minimum changes to
make it a WG draft and then post a -01 with those technical items
changed to WG consensus.)

The entire draft is not determined to be WG consensus until the Chair
says so, most commonly at the end of a WG Last Call.

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

> -m
>
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:27 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 4/27/21 10:17 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >
> >>>         There was also a suggestion to add something to the boilerplate text of individual I-Ds along the lines of "anyone can submit an I-D; they have no formal standing until they are adopted by a group in the IETF or IRTF". Would that provide additional clarification?
> >>     Oh yes, PLEASE!
> >
> >     concur.   Except get rid of the "adopted" bit, because even assuming
> >     that "adoption" of a draft by a WG is useful, it doesn't imply any
> >     kind of broad support from the organization.   Just say that the
> >     existence of a draft does not mean it has any formal standing with
> >     IETF or any other organization.   Documents with formal standing in
> >     IETF are published as RFCs.
> >
> >     Keith