RE: Status of this memo

["Gorman, Pierce" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with the assertion that the discussion is/was converging.

An author can write whatever they like.  A WG is free to adopt, or not, whatever I-D is made available to them.  An author/editor can write whatever they like.  WG members are free to suggest and request substantive and editorial changes to an I-D.  And, as the venerable Scott Bradner observed, "... once the WG adopts an ID, as has been previously noted, the original author or editor is required to reflect the WG consensus - if the original author or editor refuses to do so he or she can be "fired"."  (The operative words there being "can be".)

Consensus can resemble insufficiently persuasive arguments to require (further) change.  Ultimately, an I-D does not become an RFC unless WG consensus is achieved regardless of whether consensus happens prior to, or at, Last Call.

The topic of I-D and RFC "change control" is broad, but that is my summary of what I perceive as the convergence in the discussion so far.

Pierce

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Salz, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:29 AM
To: Keith Moore <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Status of this memo

[External]


>    I think that's about right, and I think the discussion is/was converging
    on that view.

I do not think it is.  "Change control" hasn't bveen discussed really, until the past day or so.

Change control is important, particularly when first-timers are bringing outside work into the IETF.  "You can't just approve my doc?"