[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 15:33:16
"Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> 

    Lakshminath> Sam,
    Lakshminath> I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game.  I 
also don't
    Lakshminath> understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially 
    Lakshminath> reference to your point about Cullen holding his DISCUSS beyond
    Lakshminath> resolution of Russ's).

I guess I was unclear.  I think it's reasonable for Cullen to say "I
agree with that other discuss," and that's how I interpret his current
position.  I think it's kind of odd for him to stick that in the
discuss box rather than the comment box, but I don't think it is
particularly harmful provided that his discuss never blocks the
document.  I.E. he needs to make sure his discuss is removed before
Russ clears.

Put another way, it's fine for Cullen to tell other IESG members that
he agrees with a discuss.  It's fine for him to agree so strongly that
he'd like to be given an opportunity to take on the discuss if for
example the person holding the discuss gives up and wants to drop the
issue.  It's not fine for him to expect you to do anything based on a
discuss that vague.  It's not fine for his inaction to cause your
document to get stuck based on a discuss that vague.

IETF mailing list

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