The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs.
Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let them
continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D tracker. It is the right
tool for the job.
But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the DISCUSS
with anyone. It simply logs it.
Let us at least start by having all DISCUSSes and COMMENTS automatically
forwarded to the WG chairs. These notes arrive in the tracker at
pseudo-random times and it must be a very diligent chair that spots them
If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just
But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS is
not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from reaching the
WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the resolution (not just
the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D tracker.
I'm not convinced personally
that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer.
Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical
typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD).
In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG?
A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what?
And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these
simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple misconception
resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D.
it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave
this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case.
Well, assuming that the DISCUSS arrives at the WG chair as an email, this
might be a reasonable compromise. But it seems like make-work to me.
As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations
from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be
discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more
difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG.
Hmmm. Would this work be more difficult because of the very large flood of
email responses that would be generated? (I don't think this would happen
with any of the WGs I follow!)
Or is there some other reason? It can't be a matter of politics or fear of
being out-spoken because the DISCUSS is public domain anyway.
If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure,
for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots
discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it
would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration".
As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently
has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some
revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems
excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.
I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last call
on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else will the WG
improve its output?
Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used for
conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps?
Ietf mailing list