Dave, I agree with you, and yet that is not incompatible with AD Sponsored. "Reviewed and last called by the Foo WG" is not "a product of the Foo WG."
We are usually at this point because the Foo WG either doesn't exist or has expressed no enthusiasm to adopt and work on the topic. AD Sponsorship is not, IMHO, contradictory to "reviewed by the IETF community". Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave > Thaler > Sent: 17 March 2014 18:54 > To: joel jaeggli; Joe Touch; [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin > Stiemerling > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize- > opt-09 > > On 3/14/14, 1:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > I'm not very comfortable with AD sponsored standards-track updates. > > +1 > > Standards track documents ought to be reviewed by some WG. For example, > back > when I did RFC 2667, it didn't fall into any existing WG, but the AD had it get > reviewed > and last called by the most relevant WG that existed. I still believe that's the > most > appropriate thing to do, even for things that are nominally "AD sponsored". > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
