-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
[...]
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often
enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some
other WG.
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on
documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments
as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by
others.
The process of AD review in 2026 specifies a few distinct things:
- check for end-runs around WGs
- check for inter-WG consistency
- check for clarity commensurate with the doc level
- check for tech quality commensurate with the doc level
The IAB is there to check for consistency with the the Internet, of course.
There's no point in the AD review at which their _input_ to the document
is solicited by the process in 2026; IMO, that's supposed to have
happened beforehand (though it often does not it is not a good excuse
for late input).
I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but
I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such
disputes than either "let the AD win" or "let's sit on this until the
IESG holds its nose and passes it".
Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to
"what can you add/change to appease the other AD" rather than "what is
sensible to add".
It's as likely to boil down to "how do we get this WG to realize that
there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created?"
That is a different issue when it occurs.
From a process viewpoint the two cases (one where a clueless AD is
pushing back against a clueful WG, and another where a clueless WG is
being pushed back on by a clueful AD) are equivalent, and it's difficult
to change the process in a way that solves one of those problems without
making the other one worse.
They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between
the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process.
(and yes, both of these are extreme (though not rare) cases - it can
also be a conflict between different kinds of cluefulness, where there
are legitimate concerns on both sides and it's hard for any individual
to see enough of the picture on short notice to understand what kind of
compromise would be reasonable.)
Keith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCcWYoE5f5cImnZrsRArZQAJ9zYKX8hne5hQ9d/sTtbCGQ2C1FzQCfZTZV
GrP1TrjmCp7KMnmBoz75hvA=
=x8dA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf