Re: Submitted ID not by original authors (i.e., a hack/hijack)

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Fred,

>> our rules do _not_ permit taking someone else's document and passing  it 
>> off as your own.
>
> And they do not permit the automated overwrite of a consensus document 
> from the working group.

Hi, Fred,

I would love to agree with your statement, and it wouldn't surprise me if 
I'm missing something, but I don't know what rules you're referring to - 
sorry! I'm not seeing text that says this in RFC 2418, for example. Could 
you help me out?

If you'd said "normal operational practices", I'd agree with that - I just 
think our BCP rules are silent about a lot of things that we all "just 
know".

Several years ago there were a couple of proposals to give working groups 
the ability to say there was something special about a specific version of a 
working group internet draft - one from Scott Bradner, and one from myself, 
Dave Crocker and Charlie Perkins. One talked about Stable Snap Shots (SSS), 
and the other talked about Working Group Snapshots (WGS), but there were 
more similarities than differences, I think.

Both were attempts to allow a working group to associate "special" 
attributes with a specific version of a working group draft.

>From the WGS proposal:

     WGS can be assigned for any use the a working group finds
     helpful. Example uses include:

(deleted down to)

     *     Marking a final working group stage, such as assigning
           the label as part of a working group Last Call.

I can't speak for Scott, but I was certainly thinking that WGSs would be 
something you couldn't update without talking to the working group, and I 
THOUGHT Scott had the same idea about SSSs.

Neither proposal caught on.

Scott's is available at 
http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-01.txt.

Mine is available at 
http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00.txt.

Thanks,

Spencer