Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-crocker-id-adoption-05.txt> (Creating an IETF Working Group Draft) to Informational RFC

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 17:27:07 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 10:43 05-01-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
>I'm not sure how to have the text make this point more clearly in the draft.

Thanks for the explanation.  I am okay with no changes.

>You're the third person to note this.  I think that counts as consensus...

:-)

>I believe working groups often do things like adding a document, or 
>splitting a document into two or even combining documents, without 
>changing their charter.  I guess I've understood the essential 
>question for changing the charter to be when the substance of the 
>group's work is changed.
>
>To the extent that a scenario, of the type you describe, causes 
>debate within a working group, I would think that it's usually 
>healthy for the group, since it can produce better clarity about the 
>group's work.
>
>I'm not sure a document like the current draft should seem to be 
>more precise on this than it currently is.  In other words, yes, the 
>controversy/confusion you cite happens, but we probably should not 
>change the current draft to affect that.

I am okay with the above.

>hmmm. yeah.  Strange wording choice, especially since as you note 
>the phrase is a formal term of art.  No memory of what produced that 
>wording.  I think better wording would be:
>
>       However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put
>       new ideas into concrete form, for public
>       consideration and discussion."

The (above) wording is fine.

>The paragraph is meant to counter-act the reaction people sometimes 
>have, that posting an alternative draft is automatically a bad 
>thing, by noting that it can be a valid form of commenting on an 
>existing, other draft.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy