Subject: RE: MARID back from the grave?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:53:40 -0000

Spencer,

This was raised in the Problem WG, where I pointed out that all I-Ds are
*not* equal - even though the current credo says that they are.  Over
the years, there has been an implicit status associated with *WG*
drafts, which has not been associated with *individual* drafts.

AFAIK this point hasn't been picked up.  Until the implicit assumptions
are explicitly codified, or rejected, there will be continuing confusion
about the status of I-Ds.  When additional rules, e.g. submission rules,
are formulated around the implicit notion of I-D status, the problems
are compounded.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BT Group

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:        +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:  +44(0) 7917 02016
         HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

BT Group plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816 This electronic message
contains information from BT Group plc which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email
(to the numbers or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the
BT Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective
operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using
this system will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure
effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Spencer Dawkins
Sent: 25 February 2005 07:38
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?

... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are (or that 
working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt a draft as a 
working group draft.

I see this as a bigger problem - some working groups that have more 
work in individual drafts than in working group drafts, because they 
wait until they have substantial consensus around drafts before even 
adopting them, while other working groups create initial text as 
working group drafts and then start wordsmithing from there - but 
haven't found anyone else that was interested in formalizing what it 
means when working groups adopt a draft.

My particular interest was as part of ICAR - I was thinking that 
there's a blizzard of individual drafts, but if something is adopted 
as a working group draft, it starts to absorb working group and AD 
time (at a minumum), so this transition point might be a good 
opportunity for a formal review.

But ICAR won't be worrying about this topic anytime in the foreseeable 
future :-)

Spencer

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf