Sam,
I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I also don't
understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially (in
reference to your point about Cullen holding his DISCUSS beyond
resolution of Russ's).
I have seen better examples where for instance your DISCUSS quotes what
you think needs to be resolved from the external review. Likewise, Russ
states what needs to be resolved from the external review. Recently Tim
put a DISCUSS on another document based on my comments stating what his
specific concerns are. In all those cases, it is at least somewhat
clear as to what the AD might want.
In closing, perhaps some of us would like to be behind a DISCUSS that
states "resolve some of the issues of a 3rd party." I for one find it
very hard to work in that kind of an environment.
From my view point, here is how the process looks: First we have to beg
to know what the issues are, then propose text, only to have it
dismissed after some time, propose text again, repeat that for a
non-deterministic number of times and eventually hope that the AD is
satisfied; repeat that for the next AD, and so on.
That is seriously broken!! All I am asking for though is to just remove
the first step for starters. We shouldn't have to ask to know what the
DISCUSS is about.
best regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 1:51 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Lakshminath> Cullen, Lakshminath> Thank you for your statement that
you are keen to make sure your Lakshminath> DISCUSSes are within the
parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I Lakshminath> appreciate
it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
Lakshminath> language is poor (they are both probably true), but
could you explain Lakshminath> how one of your most recent DISCUSSes:
Lakshminath> "Cullen Jennings:
Lakshminath> Discuss [2008-03-05]: Lakshminath> There has been a lot
of discussion about keying modes for Lakshminath> SRTP, so I'm glad
to see a document that covers this topic Lakshminath> for MIKEY. For
that reason, I think it's really important Lakshminath> to get this
right. It looks to me like some of the issues Lakshminath> EKR raises
need to be fixed in order to achieve that."
Presumably Cullen is agreeing with the discuss position that I'm
holding and that Russ is holding. If Cullen plans to hold his
discuss position past the resolution of Russ's discuss (Russ has
agreed to take on mine), then I agree his discuss is inappropriate.
I'm not sure that Cullen made the best use of the tool, but I'm not
sure he did anything wrong either. I believe that my discuss is
consistent with the discuss criteria because while it is based on an
external review, I've explained what parts of the review I consider
blocking. I haven't read Russ's discuss. I believe that if he
selected what parts of the review he considers are a valid discuss,or
if he simply asked you to respond to Eric's comments (saying that he
believes last call discussion is still ongoing), then it is a valid
discuss. The second discuss (please respond to Eric and conclude the
last call discussion) is a process discuss not a content discuss; he
would be asking you to actually engage in a discussion. If he later
believed that Tim had incorrectly evaluated the consensus of that
discussion, he might change his position to another process discuss
about a consensus problem.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf