Re: [Tools-discuss] [BOFCHAIRS] New datatracker release

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 6/1/11 19:02, Jun 1, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
> Having postulated the above, I wonder if an I-D  could (or should) be 
> able to be "watched" in more than one WG at time.

Yes, yes, a million times yes.

Consider draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-sip (ROHC and SIP), 
draft-ietf-sip-compression (ROHC and SIP), 
draft-ietf-sipping-sigcomp-dictionary (SIPPING and ROHC), 
draft-garcia-simple-presence-dictionary (SIMPLE and ROHC), and 
draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance (SIPCORE and GEOPRIV). And those 
are just documents that I've personally been involved with (either as an 
author, a major contributor, or a document shepherd). I imagine there 
are documents that straddle GEOPRIV and ECRIT as well, but I'm not 
following those groups closely enough to cite specific ones.

I would have to imagine that other areas have similar situations arise 
from time to time.

In any case, we do quite occasionally produce documents that necessarily 
straddle working groups, in that they deal with the intersection of the 
technologies that those groups have been chartered to address.

> If yes, then in how many different WG should the same I-D be able to 
> be in the "WG Chair is Watching" state? 

 From a practical perspective, there *probably* won't ever be more than 
two groups watching at a time. From a tools perspective, I think it 
would be artificial to limit the number at all. It would be infuriating 
to be bitten by a tools limitation when and if the first legitimately 
three-group document comes floating along. So, if there is a hard limit, 
it should be >>2.

/a