> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:48 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Working group status > > It is rather strange to close a WG when an almost-ready I-D exists, a > recent example was YAM and 5321bis. OTOH I'm not competent to say much > about DKIM ARF, excluding editorial ABNF nits or similar issues. > As long as Barry is willing to shepherd your DKIM I-D here go for it.
The WG wouldn't close if there's active work on any of the drafts. My concern is that there isn't. We have a pattern of asking for review comments, not getting any, starting a working group last call, maybe getting some, then requesting through the AD an IETF-wide last call, and only then do we get some feedback. We don't need a working group if the only meaningful phase of that cycle is the IETF-wide last call. We get that automatically with AD-sponsored documents. We wouldn't make a formal working group shutdown decision until all documents that have received enough feedback to justify the push to publication are in the IESG queue. But we're not going to wait for a bunch of work to happen if it looks like it won't. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
