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.
I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically
astute than the rest of us. I would actually feel more comfortable with
ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the
same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment
should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where
everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides
technical input can be held accountable.
If whoever wants to provide technical input to make a significant change
in a specification, be it an AD or a WG chair or ..., can't make a
sufficiently convincing case, in an open WG mailing list, that there at
least might not be "rough consensus" for a specification, then I would
say the specification doesn't need the change.
I tend to agree with Ralph here. I've had very good dealings with ADs when they
bring their DISCUSS to the WG mailing list. This helps to resolve the issue;
sometimes making the WG realize something which they missed, and sometimes even
the AD realizes that the WG has considered their DISCUSS and rejected it for
technically sound reasons.
Engaging in WG discusses is time consuming, but I think it is consistent with
the broad principle of "rought consensus and running code."
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf