ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "Discuss" criteria

2007-01-02 05:08:15
I read Dave's words "clear statement of what actions must be taken to clear
the Discuss" not as requiring the specification of a complete fix, but
rather as an indication of what needs to happen to the draft.
Implementation details of meeting those requirements are left to the WG.

I agree with Dave on this point.

- Ralph


On 1/1/07 8:22 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:

     Something quite basic that is missing from the draft on
     Discuss Criteria is a requirement that any Discuss not only
     explain its precise normative basis, but that it give a clear
     statement of what actions must be taken to clear the Discuss.


I strongly disagree.  When a working group document fails to meet RFC
2026 criteria for the intended status, it's not up to the AD voting
Discuss to fix the problem.  The burden is on the WG to either convince
the IESG that its document does indeed meet RFC 2026 criteria, or to
bring the document in line with RFC 2026.

While there is nothing wrong with an AD suggesting a simple fix to a
document problem if he or she can identify one, expecting the AD to fix
nontrivial problems is unrealistic and also encourages micromanagement.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>