I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a
flamewar with Keith...
First, let's restore some context. We're talking about
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
specifically section 3.1; and I was taking exception to the last bullet
in 3.1:
]
] The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical approach
] or document.
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
[John Leslie wrote]
It's high time we gave up any pretense that the "IETF-as-a-whole"
should come to "consensus" about the technical details of RFCs before
they're published.
strongly disagree. I have seen way too many working groups working in
isolation, often deliberately so, and without due regard for the harm
that their work will cause.
Keith states a problem -- which although many of us might state
differently, most of us agree is a problem; and then makes a giant leap
to the conclusion that our defense against this must be to depend upon
some AD to call for IETF-as-a-whole consensus after the IETF Last-Call
has failed to turn up any specific issues.
I contend that Keith's cure looks worse than the disease. Very often,
by the time we reach that stage, the WG has effectively disbanded, and
if they haven't, this kind of open-ended, "Somebody somewhere might not
like this" statement should push them over the edge.
The proper cure for the disease Keith names has been agreed upon for
years now: early cross-area expert review. Alas, we don't seem to be
getting there.
I continue to suggest that this last DISCUSS criteria is wrong.
Instead we should have something like:
"
" The potential for harm has not been adequately considered. An expert
" review by [fill in the blank] Area is needed.
(which, BTW, I cannot find in the list in section 3.1).
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf