John C Klensin wrote:
(1) The tracker categories are a matter of IESG decisions, not
of anything on which the community has ever reached consensus or
been asked to do so (something I actually consider a good
thing). The IESG can change them as needed. If the current
state of the tools is such that they cannot be changed, then I
believe that
This type of problem with DISCUSS pre-dates the tools.
Yes, the tools will need to be changed, but they aren't the problem.
(3) I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for the IESG
to decide to require the 2606 names, or to require them unless
justification were explicitly provided and a waiver requested
and granted.
It is not reasonable to apply this requirement to advancement/revision
efforts, absent active demonstration of problems with the existing choices
used in the draft under revision.
However, if there is one topic in the IETF's discussions in the
last several years about procedures on which there is clear
consensus, it is that the community doesn't like unnecessary
late surprises and considers them destructive.
This is definitely a deeper issue.
Yes, exactly. And the fact that this was discussed, and an
explicit decision reached, months before Last Call makes the
situation even worse, IMO.
Another deeper issue. A single individual attempting to counter-act the
judgement of the working group, without affirmative justification except
erroneous citation of rules and without specific expertise to counteract the
substantial expertise of the particular working group. (Lest anyone want to
invoke the "rogue" wg strawman.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf