You can definitely charter a WG to use a specific set of documents as a starting point for their work -- that's a solution space WG, and they used to be more common than they are now. That sort of group will typically formally adopt the documents named in their charter right away, and only change them if they have consensus to do so. I think that is about as far in that direction as you can go, though.
I don't think you can have a WG that the isn't allowed to make changes to a WG document if they _do_ have consensus to make those changes. If an AD wants to publish a document as a standards-track document close to as-is and thinks the IETF would have consensus to do that, he or she can just sponsor it for publication without a WG at all. If I understand correctly, that wouldn't work well in this case, because people active in the Routing Area would not feel comfortable publishing a routing protocol without more review and visibility than that. Margaret Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> In the light of the above figures -- can I trust an IETF working group to >>> understand that a huge amount of effort has been put into removing >>> mechanisms from this protocol, and to respect that work? >> >> Yes, I think that the requirement for minimal mechanisms and a simple >> easy to implement and troubleshoot protocol can be clearly expressed. How >> well the WG handles this depends in part on the WG chairs and how strongly >> the participants are reminded of that requirement and how stringently the >> need >> for truly active consensus is focused on. > > Alia - can we put something to that effect in the charter? > > There is a real risk that any WG working on standardizing babel will start > proposing lots of changes to the protocol (due to NIH syndrome, general > bikeshedding, etc.), alienating its author and leading to lost time and the > usual failures of design-by-committee. > > To avoid this, can we see to it that the charter of any group chartered to > take babel to proposed standard status be chartered to do so without making > substantial changes to the protocol mechanics? > > That way, if the protocol works well as is, we'll get a standard soon. If it > doesn't, the WG can always throw up its hands and fail fast.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
