Hi, Jari.
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private
messages to the AD in question or to the IESG are helpful. And while "+1" is
usually bad form, indicating that you've done a thorough review and found no
issues is appreciated. (Or better yet, that you intend to put this technology
into your own use.)
Finding issues is one goal of LC. So to go back to Warren's example of
draft-ietf-foo-dangerous-orangutangs, there of course is room for comments
about why they spelled it Orangutan in the title, but Orangutang (with a g) in
the abstract. And of course there's room for comments about why section 2 does
not explain why DNSSEC would not protect web users from Orangutan(g)s.
But LC comments can also be about whether or not this is something that should
be done at all. Maybe some believe that the IETF should not be dealing with
Orangutans at all because we have already standardized on chimps. Or maybe ACME
corporation has IPR on Orangutans and we should not deal with them. There can
even be a comment saying that nobody needs this and nobody's going to implement
this (OK, the ape example kind of fails here).
It's because of this last kind of comment that we need to show support. "I
think this is a good document" is not a helpful comment. "I think this document
will be useful for people implementing routing protocols" is. And if we get
some +1's on that comment especially from people who know about routing, this
is useful. In this case we shouldn't be looking for consensus, or rather not
just for consensus. We also need a community of people who need this document.
And some explanations as to why this is a good idea, along with some +1s is an
OK way to determine that there is a community.
Yoav