(note is long - summary: Review panel SHOULD, in my opinion, be able to
send back documents to WG without it being a Big Deal. At least once.)
--On 4. august 2005 09:08 -0400 Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They apparently
range from simple typos ("expand acronyms") to differences of opinion
("WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are at least plausible") to
adding various disclaimers to fundamental design problems ("broken").
I don't know if Bill's database extract contains the actual DISCUSS text,
but the analysis would at least be interesting.
The category I remember seeing most often was "you have not explained how
this works" - this might be because it was not written clearly enough,
because there were states/events that the WG/author had not described,
because the explanation was in other documents not available to reviewers,
or because the WG had chosen to ignore that particular issue in the
document - sometimes because the WG had failed to get consensus on it, and
preferred to paper over the issue by not mentioning it.
In at least one case I remember, my DISCUSS saying "I don't see how this
works" resulted in a technical change in the document; the WG effectively
said "No, we don't see how this can work either - we'd better decide".
I don't remember many recent DISCUSSes based on a fundamental design issue;
the perception that protocols with fundamental design problems (like
"broken security") would not pass the IESG might be a reason for the lack
of such DISCUSSes - putting the quality input where it should be (in the
WG), but enforced by a strong end-game filter function (in the IESG).
And that's a Good Thing.
But - I don't remember all DISCUSS texts.....
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf