-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 10:05 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
By contrast, working groups tend to contain more expertise than may
be available in an IETF LC; that's partly why they're formed. I've
never been an AD before, but I imagine I might consider the WG
consensus to be at least a little bit more weighty than IETF LC
resistance.
I rather hope not. As someone else has argued in this thread, WGs
tend to be narrowly focussed. The IETF LC is at least partly, as I
understand it, to make sure that something which seems an obviously
good idea to the WG doesn't have all manner of implications that the
WG perhaps did not consider.
Maybe I'm taking your words too extremely, but if WGs tend to be narrowly
focused, then how can they be reasonably assured of the success of anything
they produce? I'm imagining a model here wherein a WG produces documents
suffering from a focus that is too narrow, those documents go to IETF LC or the
IESG, and are invariably shot down because they failed to account for this or
that outside of that focus. It would take a huge number of iterations to get
anything done.
Rather, I would hope they would have or seek to have enough people in them to
bring breadth as well as depth, specifically so that they aren't producing
things prone to raise objections. Perhaps we see this as the role of the AD
that is overseeing that particular WG, but that seems a huge burden to put on
one person.
For the working groups and documents into which I've put work, I've made a
point of seeking the breadth so that the reviews of the various directorates,
whose comments are influential with the IESG, don't end up stalling
publication. I would hope this is common practice.
It seems to me that very strong reaction in the IETF generally to a
proposal demands convincing counter-arguments from those who support
the publication. I refuse to have an opinion about the example under
discussion, but surely we don't want to build in some preference for
what the WG says.
I suspect the documents from a WG should carry within them enough instructive
text to include those arguments up-front, so if there's any objection voiced at
IETF LC, it's bound to be new material. The re-hashing of the same arguments
made in the WG during IETF LC seems like a waste of time to me unless there are
new details available.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf