Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/2022 5:46 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
> ou are linking to the correct draft but you’re still missing an 
> important distinction: there’s a huge difference between an individual 
> I-D, which is what the old signatures draft was, and an active working 
> group document, which is what the GNAP resource servers document is. The 
> latter is on a path to become an RFC, the former is not. Both are 
> “labeled” as I-D, which might be the source of the confusion — and 
> that’s why I say that the label of “internet draft” doesn’t actually 
> mean anything on its own. It’s the state of the document within the 
> process of the SDO that matters. This is why the current HTTP Signatures 
> draft within the HTTP working group is considered :much: more normative 
> than any of the old individual drafts, including the series of Cavage drafts


The above clarifications have the right spirit, but I'll suggest some 
simplifications that might make things even easier and maybe clearer:

1. Any and all IETF-related (draft-) Internet Drafts have no formal 
publication status.  None.  They are working documents and the nature of 
venue of the work involving them varies from none to a lot.

2. Outside of the formalities, any individual group -- including an IETF 
working group -- can choose to add their own formal status, such as 
'working group document', but that's an internal status for group 
management purposes.

3. When an I-D has some relationship to a published document, the I-D is 
likely to represent more recent views, obviously.  One can choose to 
favor it, therefore, but that's different from its having community 
reviewed and approved status.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net