On 28/05/2013 21:32, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and > considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for > publication. > > We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns > associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as > Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative > definition of process) and would like your input. > > What is not clear? > What have we got wrong?
I haven't read the draft yet, and *before* I do so, I'd like to express some doubt whether we should even informally describe this using the word "process". It seems to me that it's each WG's prerogative how it does this; it has no impact on the standards process as a whole. The word "adopt" doesn't even occur in RFC 2418, and it is not used in the context of WG adoption in RFC 2026. In other words, I don't think this action is part of the standards process. It's WG folklore. Brian > How should we resolve the remaining editor notes? > > Thanks, > Adrian > (per pro Dave) > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt > > > . >
