ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

2013-04-12 11:31:39
On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Martin Rex <mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm currently seeing a document with some serious defects in
IETF Last Call (rfc2560bis) and an apparent desire to have
it Rubberstamped by the IESG (recycling at Proposed Standard).

FWIW, I raised the same question during IESG review.   It didn't seem like a 
"serious defect" to me, but it did seem like a strange design choice.   I 
ultimately withdrew my objection after we walked through the problem.   If we 
were doing a clean slate design, fixing the problem as you proposed would be a 
net win.   Given that there are substantial existing deployments, it doesn't 
look like a net win to me.

I think this is really a matter of judgment, not a matter of fact, so while I 
sympathize that it didn't come out your way, I don't agree with you that the 
wrong thing happened.


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