RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID
"Scott Hollenbeck" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp,gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF02E0F942@vsvapostal8.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> |
> And correct me if I'm wrong :), but the same also applies to the IETF > Working Group as neither WG nor chairs of WG make decisions about > documents going to standard or experimental status, instead they make > recomendation to IESG which is the ultimate decision maker on status > of IETF documents and which is supposed to make these > decisions based on > both recomendation of the WG and based on comments received > from other > IETF participants during last call for the documents. Not exactly. It's more typical for working group document status decisions to be made as part of the working group chartering process. The expected working group outputs (documents, including their standards track status) are documented in the charter. IETF review is part of the chartering process, so the issue of document status is ultimately one discussed within and recommended by the community. Changes can be made over time; we have processes for that. The IESG does have final approval authority, though. The situation is a bit different when a working group is unable to complete the work outlined in the charter; see section 4 of RFC 2418. At that point the documents can be abandoned as unfinished work or they can be pursued as individual submissions outside of the working group. RFC 2026 describes the options. -Scott-