Re: perplexed by an I-D-editor request

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

Unfortunately, this does not answer my question. My question is about my
updating the disposition of a non-WG document, so that the tombstone
file would properly point at a WG document.

	Tony Hansen
	[e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:
>       I hope the following helps:
>       Please refer to "Guidelines to Authors Of Internet Drafts" section 7.
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html
> 
> "If the document is a new one (i.e., starting with revision -00.txt) and is
> submitted as a working group document, the IETF Secretariat needs
> permission from the chair(s) of the wg to publish it as a working group
> document. Working group chairs should submit this permission at (or close
> to) the time that the draft is submitted for posting. To expedite the
> process, authors are encouraged to send the document to
> "[e-mail]" and at the same time cc: to the chair(s) of the
> working group."
> 
> Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I sent in an I-D before Dallas. It was a -00 WG document, and was
>> appropriately approved, etc., to get into the I-D repository.
>> 
>> One thing I forgot to tell the I-D editor was that this -00 document was
>> replacing a former individual -01 I-D.
>> 
>> I recently remembered to send a note off to the I-D Editor telling them
>> that the -00 WG document replaced the -01 individual I-D. I got a note
>> back from the I-D Editor saying
>> 
>>              The wg chairs should confirm this replacement.
>> 
>> This request seems rather strange to me. The I-D Editor already has the
>> approved -00 WG in the I-D store; I'm the author of both documents, and
>> the titles are the same. Shouldn't the word of the author saying that a
>> non-WG document has been superceded by a WG document be sufficient? I
>> can see needing confirmation when documents are downgraded from a WG
>> document to a non-WG document, but certainly not the other way
>> around.
>> 
>> Anyway, I was perplexed. Can anyone elucidate?