In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria:
- Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured
discussion in the WG.
Regards
::as
On 02/12/2012 16:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/2012 8:00 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I led the discussion in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic.
>> Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#
>
>
> Folks,
>
> There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended to
> document common practice in the adoption of working group drafts:
>
>> Title: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
>> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption
>>
>> Abstract:
>> The productive output of IETF working groups is documents, as
>> mandated by the working group's charter. Working groups develop
>> these documents based on initial input of varying levels of maturity.
>> An initial working group draft might be a document already in wide
>> use, or it might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the workiing
>> group, or it might represent any level of maturity in between. This
>> document discusses the process of creating formal working group
>> drafts that are targeted for publication.
>
>
>
> Although it is not intended for a standards-track or bcp publication, it
> would be helpful to have discussion that moves the document to represent
> good agreement among the community.
>
> d/
>
