The MPLS WG Archive

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Shahram, Eric-

 Break :)

 Seems that a process clarification is due.
 [BTW, I suppose we're talking about draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping here]

 1. When a document becomes a WG item, the authors of the document
    automatically become document editors (if a decision is not made
    to assign a new editor.)

 2. RFC 2418, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",
    section 6.3 "Document Editor":

> 6.3. Document Editor
> 
>    Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of
>    documents, that capture the results of the group's work.  A working
>    group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor
>    for a particular document.  The Document Editor is responsible for
>    ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the
>    decisions that have been made by the working group.

 So, yes, the editors need to ensure the document needs to reflect the
 WG consensus.

 Now, that said, it would, of course, be unreasonable to ask the
 editors to check the consensus of the WG on every word--different
 people have different writing styles and English skills. However, if
 a discussion on a specific part of the document has been triggered
 within the WG and the consensus was to change the text, the editors
 need to do this.

-- 
Alex

Thursday, April 3, 2003, 11:09:41 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:

>>Your  citation from  RFC 3160  does not  seem to  imply 
>>anywhere  that every
>>change to a WG draft must  be approved by consensus.

> It says:

> "     2. Receive comments on the draft
>       3. Edit your draft based on the comments"

> It never says edit the draft as the author(s) wish.


>>In fact, 
>>your citation
>>doesn't  even mention  consensus.

> True, but I think that is common sense that when a draft is a WG
> document, the author(s) should not change it based on their own 
> opinion only. Otherwise what would be the difference between a WG
> draft and a personal draft?

>>Not to  mention  that RFC  
>>3160 does  not
>>specify the standards process anyway.

> So? we are talking about WG drafts.

> -Shahram