Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48

[[e-mail]]

Brian,

> I don't think this is a WG matter and I don't think it's the IETF's business
> either. It seems to me that this matter is in the scope of the RFC Editor to
> decide, if the authors can't, since it's about the style and contents of an RFC.
> IMHO, it has nothing to do with its technical content or with the fact that
> it's an IETF stream document.

What makes you think that?
Is that described in RFC process somewhere?

From RFC7221:
      REMINDER:  Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is owned
      by the working group and can be changed however the working group
      decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working group
      charter.  Absent explicit agreement, adopting a document does not
      automatically mean that the working group has agreed to all of its
      content.  So a working group (or its charter) might explicitly
      dictate the basis for retaining, removing, or modifying some or
      all of a draft's content, technical details, or the like.
      However, in the absence of such constraints, it is worth having
      the adoption process include a sub-process of gathering working
      group concerns about the existing draft and flagging them
      explicitly.
...
      It is a responsibility of the Working Group Chairs to ensure that
      document authors make modifications in accord with working group
      rough consensus.  Authors/editors are solely chosen by the Chairs
      -- although the views of the working group should be considered --
      and are subject to replacement for a variety of reasons, as the
      Chairs see fit.


The document is the output of the working group.
While the authors have some flexibility during AUTH48 under the guidance of the RFC Editor, ADs and document shepherd, it is certainly not the place to add personal messages. The editors of a working document are expected to represent the working group.

Best regards,
Ole