On 2006-12-29 17:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Dave is probably correct that the specific criteria are of broader
>> interest than just ADs, WG chairs, editors, and process wonks, and
>> might become even more perfect with broader review, but that's another
>> issue.
>>
>> And, since the criteria are public, I'm sure the IESG would be
>> interested in feedback on the criteria,
Yes. That was indeed the point of publishing them in the first place.
Doesn't mean we have to agree of course ;-)
I think most of what I would say about your feedback has been
said by others. But a few follow-ups follow:
On 2006-12-30 22:32, John Leslie wrote:
...
> This is _not_ the general case. For the general case, I must agree
> with Dave Crocker:
> ]
> ] This is perhaps the scariest of the criteria. It says that a
> ] knowledgeable, motivated constituency can spend months on solving a
> ] problem that it needs to have solved, and then others who have not
> ] participated in the work can come along and sabotage it.
>
> Actual IETF consensus (not just the lack of adverse comments during
> Last-Call) is very hard to achieve. Requiring it for ordinary WG work
> is non-scalable. (We can't reasonably expect to accomplish it more
> than perhaps a half-dozen times a year.)
You can't prove a negative (nobody disagrees) but you can prove
a positive (at least one individual disagrees).
> This DISCUSS criteria (alleging lack of IETF-wide consensus), as
> written, allows any AD (hopefully not the one shepherding it!) to
> effectively block the work of a WG. Sam's "solution" amounts to
> negotiation among non-players over _how_ to judge the prejudices of
> folks who mostly don't understand the issues.
There is that danger, but there is equally a danger of group-think
whereby a WG chooses to ignore a generic issue. And even if only
one person blows the whistle on that group-think during IETF Last
Call, that is something the IETF needs to deal with.
> Further Sam's "solution" tends to favor re-running the Last-Call
> if you don't like the results. This is a very bad practice. It
> causes everyone who pays attention to believe there must be problems
> below the surface; and strongly tends to produce a situation in
> which consensus looks impossible (because too many issues have been
> raised).
I think that misrepresents actual practice, which is to refer the
issue back to the WG and make sure they actually discuss it.
> In the normal case, any DISCUSS should go back to the WG. With
> technical issues named, addressing them is workable. With a demand
> for review by particular experts, there's at least a place to start.
> With "So-and-so thinks somebody somewhere wouldn't like this," there's
> really no place to start. :^(
Agreed, with the qualification that if *big* changes are made
as a result, a second IETF Last Call may be appropriate.
On 2007-01-01 15:17, Robert Sayre wrote:
...
> A WG can agree with the AD that there is a problem, but disagree that
> it needs to be solved in their document. Too often, the compromise
> ends up being the insertion of text that satisfies the AD's concerns,
> but disenfranchises the WG. The WG either ignores the text in
> practice, or the document author couches the text in so many
> qualifiers that it becomes easy to explain any implementation in terms
> that make it seem conformant. The result is inaccurate or misleading
> documentation of Internet technology.
But it may be more harmful not to point out the issue at all, or
not to specify a better-than-nothing solution. You have to consider
the case of a relatively inexperienced implementer who may not know
something that we believe is common knowledge.
It's always open to the WG to propose a resolution of the DISCUSS
that is radically different from what the discussing AD suggests,
too.
On 2007-01-02 13:04, Ralph Droms wrote:
> 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 would generalize that slightly: the action may not even involve the
draft itself. It's not unknown for a DISCUSS to be resolved by a promise
to cover the issue in another draft. But I think we agree that a DISCUSS
needs to be actionable in some way, and that is so obvious that we forgot
to write it down.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf