On 2008-08-10 07:58, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, 09 August, 2008 20:52 +0200 "Bert Wijnen
\\(IETF\\)" <bertietf(_at_)bwijnen(_dot_)net> wrote:
John and Dave,
I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the
ID_Checklist
too much as if it is part of our (rigid) process. Our
processes aredescribed
in formally approved BCP documents.
The ID-Checklist is intended (or at least that is how it
started, and as far
as I am concerned that is still the intention) to help in a
few areas:
Bert,
We are in complete and utter agreement with each other about the
appropriate role of the ID_Checklist. For better or worse, the
IESG apparently does not agree, as evidenced most recently in
their response to my appeal about turning a suggestion from the
original version of the Checklist into a firm rule without
having that explicitly confirmed by the community.
We also agree that revising the Checklist into a document that
is suitable for use as part of a package of firm rules is a
rather different job than updating it while being consistent
with its original purpose.
So I withdraw my suggestion and comments but strongly suggest
that you make sure that your intentions for the document and
those of the IESG are in synch before proceeding much further.
I'd like to say that both as an author and as a reviewer, I have
always found both the ID checklist and the IDnits checker to be
of immense pragmatic value. Obviously, if the checklist or the
checker complains about something that isn't obviously a bug,
the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter "think"
mode or even "negotiate" mode. I agree that it's a good idea
to be clear about that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf