I'd rather force DISCUSS to be very explicit about the reason, and be
limited to the areas mentioned, but specifically prohibit last-pass edits
of the sort that ought to happen during last call or within the WG.
Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple:
1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that
involves the viability of the specification.
2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the
mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction
as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail
about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has
the goal of specifying that detail.
In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is
intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force
review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid
showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf