So, as a recipient of a DISCUSS, I've learned the hard way that the
easiest way to resolve a DISCUSS is to ask the IESG member for the
exact text they want added and be done with it. I don't think this is
the correct way to do things, but after working on a document for x
number of years and trying to push it through the last mile, often
document editors just want to get it done.
When, as sometimes happens, everybody is happy with the suggested text,
that process works well. We get closure on the issue in a short time.
The problem is when authors or WGs demand that the IESG provide
text that resolves a thorny technical problem. Sometimes the IESG
needs to say "no, you can't do X, and it's your job - not ours - to
find a different way to solve that problem". IESG is in a much better
position to find technical flaws than to craft delicate compromises
between competing interests. And sometimes it is counterproductive
for the AD to suggest a compromise even when he has an idea for
something that might work -as WG participants will fight an idea from
an AD more than they would fight the same idea from one of their own.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf