On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 19:56 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
not reasonable. even merely informative text can cause
interoperability problems if it is wrong or misleading.
As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is
likely grey enough to make this suggestion unworkable...
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.
not reasonable. it's fine for an AD to provide suggestions as to how
to resolve an issue, but it's not the AD's job to actually resolve
issues that need to be sorted out at length either within the WG or
between that WG and other parties.
I agree with the first clause; the concern must be explained and
motivated in detail. The WG - not the AD or the doc authors in
isolation - should develop the solution.
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.
such a mechanism already exists.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf