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.
Informative text that leads to such problems is incorrectly classified;
it must be normative if it causes interoperability problems.
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.
An AD can't merely raise an issue without specifying the criteria by
which the issue can be resolved. Being able to cause a problem or
roadblock without being required to state the conditions to remove it is
a recipe for abuse.
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.
Right now the onus is on the author to get around such a roadblock; the
onus ought to be on the AD to justify it first.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf