(re-posted, to correct wg address.)
On 2/4/2010 10:02 AM, Tim Polk wrote:
Discuss: [Moved from discuss-discuss to a "real" discuss based on the
Charlie Kaufman noted a number of open issues in his secdir review; the
authors' response was generally "we don't have those answers yet so we need
to be silent". I agree that these issues need not be resolved before
publication, but I do think this document would be improved by listing these
open issues. I believe there could be harm in not communicating some of
these open issues to readers.
There is plenty of experience which produces a /counter-argument/, that raising
issues, which are not resolved, can prompt confusion and doubt, particularly for
an audience that is more hands-on and less contemplative, such as operations
That downside is especially apropos here because this is indeed an OA&M-related
Informational document. It's not a specification and it's not really a
discussion about theory. The target audience typically likes things to be
concrete and directive, rather than analytic. At that, the current document
probably pushes some boundaries, but at least it tries to do that with
discussions of some substance, rather than merely listing other, potentially
interesting topics that it has nothing to say about (yet).
Note that there is a potentially infinite list of such items -- and a
theoretical basis for claiming that failing to list any one of them 'might'
produce harm. So I am not clear why the particular list that Charlie happened
to provide is worth blocking publication for, what harm will be caused by not
listing these particular items, or how listing things the document does not
discuss will avoid that harm.
You cite some discussion in the IESG that increased your concern, but you did
not provide detail about it. Perhaps your providing that detail will clarify the
nature and importance of your concern.
But you also do not provide any detail about the particular changes you require.
Although you cite Charlie Kaufman's review, the authors are not sure what text
to add that would do less harm than leaving it out. Would you please clarify
what text it is you would like to see added?
In fact, your providing text that we can plug in would be the fastest way to
resolve your concerns.
We're CC'ing the working group mailing list on this note, to let them know about
the particulars of your DISCUSS, and to solicit advice from them as well on how
to get past this issue.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to