RE: WG Adoption of an I-D

That's nice text, Andrew.

 

From: Andrew Campling <[email protected]> 
Sent: 27 April 2026 13:37
To: Salz, Rich <[email protected]>; Brian E Carpenter
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: WG Adoption of an I-D 

 

I'm not convinced that the text as worded is sufficiently clear that (rough)
consensus is not required prior to WG adoption of a draft and propose the
following.   

 

Working Groups MAY formally adopt an Internet-Draft to indicate that it is
being considered as a candidate for publication as an RFC. The main
difference between a draft owned by an individual and one adopted by a
working group is that the adoption process hands over change control to the
working group.  Once a document is adopted, Document Editors are tasked with
documenting the consensus of the Working Group.

 

Adoption of a draft is the starting point for the working group to work on
the document, with no suggestion that there is agreement on its content at
the point of adoption.  Working group chairs MAY adopt a draft if they
believe there is sufficient interest in the topic covered by the draft;
there is no requirement to establish rough consensus from the working group
for the adoption of a draft.

 

 

Andrew

 

From: Salz, Rich <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 
Sent: 27 April 2026 13:12
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus to adopt
a non-hybrid draft

 

*	Yes, although I now wonder whether we should also underline that
adopt != agree.

 

I think it's implied by the current text, but if you want to make it more
explicit, something like "adoption is the starting point for the WG to work
on the draft."