Something quite basic that is missing from the draft on
Discuss Criteria is a requirement that any Discuss not only
explain its precise normative basis, but that it give a clear
statement of what actions must be taken to clear the Discuss.
I strongly disagree. When a working group document fails to meet RFC
2026 criteria for the intended status, it's not up to the AD voting
Discuss to fix the problem. The burden is on the WG to either convince
the IESG that its document does indeed meet RFC 2026 criteria, or to
bring the document in line with RFC 2026.
While there is nothing wrong with an AD suggesting a simple fix to a
document problem if he or she can identify one, expecting the AD to fix
nontrivial problems is unrealistic and also encourages micromanagement.
Ietf mailing list