Hi John. I read Matthew's note quite carefully. Nowhere does it assert that the document is in-scope per the charter. Indeed, he carefully side-steps that question and does not assert it is in scope.
By default, I'm opposed to accepting any document as a WG document where: 1) It is not clear how it fits into the charter and broader goals of the WG. 2) It is unclear how it relates to other existing documents with overlapping material. 3) It is not clear what the intention and scope of the final document is that the WG is developing with the intention of sending to the IESG. I.e., the WG should first say "we need a document of type X that covers X, Y, and Z". Given such an understanding, one can ask whether a candidate document is a good starting point. Adopting a document first, and then figuring out what it needs to contain second is backwards process. BTW, this is my general view on WG documents. It is not NVO3 specific and is not a reflection on the particular document under discussion. We will likely need to have the same discussion about other documents that folk are asking the WG to adopt. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
