On 8/29/14 1:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Is "complete draft" the usual way these things are done now? It used
to be
that you list WGLC, LC, RFC published for each.
Different groups do them different ways. I'm partial to just listing the
"complete draft", since LC and RFC published are dependent on parties
other than the WG. I take "complete draft" to mean "WGLC complete and
submitted to the IESG".
The other thing I like about "complete draft" in this case is that it
leave it to the WG whether to publish a particular draft or not. For
example, I can imagine the WG deciding, "You know what: We're going to
include enough of the discussion of interop issues and why we chose
particular methods in the actual specification document, so there's no
point in actually submitting the first draft as an RFC; it can just be
an internal document." Or obviously the WG could choose to publish it
because it *does* have important info for the community. Either way, you
can make that decision independent of the milestone.
I have to say I like this approach a lot better. Less bureaucracy.
Me too.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
