On Feb 27, 2005, at 1:23 AM, John Loughney wrote:
Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a
contract for what the working group will work on / develop. When a
working group wants to adopt a new draft, they need to have permission
from the AD and may even need to revise
Hi Keith,
Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a contract for
what the working group will work on / develop. When a working group wants to
adopt a new draft, they need to have permission from the AD and may even need
to revise the charter to be able to adopt the wor
On Feb 27, 2005, at 12:22 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
In fact, we only have two points of contentions: old personal drafts
submitted as version 00 of WG drafts; and old WG drafts submitted as
version 00 of new personal drafts.
The first scenario is easily taken care off by granting an exemption
f
> > Thanks. I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
> > be as many entries in the revision history as the
> > revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
> > 00, and so on).
>
> don't do that. it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier
to
> publication of I-Ds
>
> I-Ds are suppos
> Graham,
>
> You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF,
> they will, most likely, become an RFC.
I hope not. When a WG agrees to consider a draft it should not be taken
as an assurance that the draft will be published as an RFC. Too many
WGs work far beyond their cha
> Thanks. I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
> be as many entries in the revision history as the
> revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
> 00, and so on).
don't do that. it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier to
publication of I-Ds
I-Ds are supposed to be a q
At 7:14 PM -0800 2/25/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote:
Ý a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
Ý encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
Ý owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name fo
This bit of hacking by Dan Connolly maybe of interest to some...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2005Feb/0003.html
#g
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https:/
