-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Joe" == Joe Touch <touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> writes:
Joe> delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe> feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe> than technical review).
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think most people would be really annoyed if I wrote up a
discuss of the form "this sucks for foo reason; please coordinate with
bar wg until they are happy then I'll clear." They would be even more
unhappy if I wrote up the more realistic "please take this to bar wg
and when they are happy I'll re review."
Actually, I would consider a diplomatically-worded version of the former
very useful. The latter is the problem - it lacks the reason the WG is
being added as a hurdle.
IMO, anytime a doc is held-up via Discuss, the reason for the discuss
and the criteria under which it can be cleared should both be required.
But I do agree with you that the job of being AD would be easier if
this option existed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCe49NE5f5cImnZrsRAhKdAJ9zvxpcIA+8glxMCx26n9HEqS3QXgCfXnNM
dv4+qHnSW6UzoeJt2wxMF6o=
=57L8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf