Comments in line...
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:48 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:
But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming "Nobody was
smarter than anybody else." Yakov explained it better than I have: "for
each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more
technically astute than that AD. So, why should the IETF decision
process favor opinion of such AD more than the opinion of these other
individual who are more astute that the AD ?"
What is the context of technical astuteness? How do you compare
people with different technical focuses? You can't.
Giving ADs a private veto (private in the sense of not discussed in
public) seems to compare technical astuteness and assign more weight to
ADs. I suggest public discussion avoids giving ADs' technical
astuteness undue weight.
If an AD raises an issue about a document (from area X) that it
conflicts or causes serious problems (from the perspective of area Y),
how do you ensure that the more technically astute people
(particularly on Y but also a bit on X) participate in the discussion?
By making the discussion public...
The key point here is that the AD from area Y might be much more
technically astute about that area than anyone in the WG producing a
So might any number of other IETF members...
Are you proposing that the IETF list is turned into generic discussion
board for all the documents, generating 20-50+ messages for every
IETF-LC'd document (every AD's "IESG review" plus clarifications,
follow-ups, outsiders opinions, etc.)?
I suggest that AD input on a doc be considered equally with other input.
Details are TBD.
What about Informational/Experiemental WG submissions which so far
have not been IETF LC'd?
If there is a Discuss on such docs, the Discuss input should be reviewed
Ietf mailing list