Re: Status of this memo

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald

Le 2021-04-27 à 21:39, Donald Eastlake a écrit :
> 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.

Thank you.
I share this vision

> 
> 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
>