On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:17:33 -0800
Cullen Jennings <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the
drafts but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their
issues. If they know they have a problem(s), it would be *far*
better to air that sooner rather than later for all parties
concerned.
I agree with the earlier is better than later for comments from
anyone, AD or not.
A few interesting side cases on this. Some ADs (more than one
actually) recently suggested to a WG that something there were doing
was likely to result in in a DISCUSS when it reached the IESG. One of
the WG members appealed the IESG trying to manipulate WG consensus.
Sort of left me scratching my head on why the WG would not want to
know that early but evidently some folks don't.
It's a delicate balance. When I was an AD, I'd often post things saying
<AD hat=off>
...
</AD>
and the like; I've seen other ADs do the same thing, both on lists and
in person. It's not clear that people always believe the disclaimer.
Even more care is necessary when warning of a DISCUSS. Is that an
accurate prediction of your own or someone else's liely views, or is it
an attempt to get one's way by threatening to block a legitimate choice
you don't like? How will it be perceived?
On the other hand, I sometimes had long, detailed discussions with WG
chairs and document authors, often at the instigation of the
responsible AD, trying to convey my concerns ahead of time, trying to
get things resolved to my satisfaction.
Finally, there was one document I abstained on, because it was
terminally broken and not repairable, but was the product of too many
years work for me, as a relatively new AD (and hence as one who hadn't
seen it before) to block. But I declined to say "no objection",
because I had very strenuous objections to it.
I'm glad there's a document being written to set forth DISCUSS
criteria. I had lots of discussions with Harald about the number I
issued -- he wanted me to justify some of them with more than the text
I wrote. "Is this issue serious enough to block publication of the
document as is?" Obviously, I thought so, but not everyone on the IESG
agreed with me on some of those cases.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf