On 12/29/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
If there are people on the IESG who you don't trust with the ability
to say "Hey, I think we have a problem here. Let's take the time to
find out," then please work to remove them.
I don't think that is an accurate description of a DISCUSS. In
particular, it skirts the issue Dave mentioned:
Dave Crocker wrote:
There is often a failure to distinguish between new and peculiar problems
created by a particular specification, versus general problems that already
A classic example of this is citing basic DNS problems, for specifications that
are merely consumers of the DNS and, hence, are not creating any new problems.
A WG can agree with the AD that there is a problem, but disagree that
it needs to be solved in their document. Too often, the compromise
ends up being the insertion of text that satisfies the AD's concerns,
but disenfranchises the WG. The WG either ignores the text in
practice, or the document author couches the text in so many
qualifiers that it becomes easy to explain any implementation in terms
that make it seem conformant. The result is inaccurate or misleading
documentation of Internet technology.
Ietf mailing list