Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 5/14/2012 10:03 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote:
>> [Answer] Each WG status document is intended to be considered to be a
>> future RFC. They are not mere numbers or academic papers.
...
> We clearly disagree in fundamental ways on how the process works.  I had
> thought that BCP 25 made it clear that I-Ds have no standards status
> whatsoever, and that advancement of wg documents (if it happens, not
> when) requires both group consensus and IESG review.  WG adoption does
> not in any way confer RFC status upon a draft.

This is discussed in Sec 5.3 of the Tao of the IETF.

> And, yes, I do think the bar for entry into discussion should be quite
> low.  A draft discussing a new HTML status code probably doesn't belong
> here.  But something discussing TRILL extensions clearly does, even if
> it's something that the group hadn't collectively "planned" on discussing.

WG status does not have any impact on whether the draft is discussed.

I agree with Tissa - IMO, the WG should adopt drafts it reasonably 
agrees it wants to issue as WG RFCs. WG adoption doesn't confer 
particular status, but it is a suggestion to the WG as to where critical 
resources should be spent (e.g., resolving WG docs before considering 
independent ones, when resources are critical).

Joe