Subject: Renaming new WG drafts (was: RE: MARID back from the grave?)

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:10:00 +0100

> ... "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 actually believe it is useful to rename drafts when they are 
adopted as WG documents. An individual draft is indeed the authors
own document, while a WG draft belongs to the WG, where the editor
do his work on behalf of the WG. This difference in itself is in my
opinion a good reason to create a new document when adopting new WG
work, even if the WG has agreed to use the content of an individual
draft as the basis for the -00 version of the new draft. 

If one really want to trace the whole history of a work item,
including pre-work before it was actually adopted by the WG, this
can be found in the WG archives (at least this is how it should be),
and I can not believe it would be hard to find out such things.

It is clear that WGs have different practices, and I believe that is
a good thing. Therefore, I like the current freedom we have to
choose whether to name all WG drafts draft-*wg*-etc, or not.

However, I would like to see improvements for the submission deadlines,
e.g. like Tony suggested. To me, the extra new-WG-draft-approval-week
is in general a complete mystery.

/L-E

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