>> There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything. > > If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are > correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal > steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. ... > Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or > there is explicit wg approval.
Indeed: we always have the option of having the charter limit management options. That's a fine thing to do when it's appropriate, and some combination of the working group proponents, the community as a whole, and the IESG decides what's appropriate. For chartering, the IESG has the final word. > Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged. I find that to be an interesting interpretation. I don't see it that way. I do, indeed, mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts. We have a common custom, which many -- probably most -- working groups use. As Wes noted, it's not used in a consistent way, exactly because it is NOT a formal process in any sense. We have a very well defined mechanism (a formal process) for making it a formal process, and we haven't done so. Wes noted that he'd like to; perhaps you'd like to join him in that. The formal process, as you know, would be to submit an Internet Draft with a target status of BCP, and either find an AD to sponsor it as an individual submission or make a BoF request and try to get a working group chartered for it. Only when that document becomes an approved BCP will we actually have formal steps. Until then, we have a custom that's usually, but not always, followed. Barry
