On May 15, 2013, at 10:39 AM 5/15/13, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU>
wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Keith
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough. At
the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked because they provide
capabilities beyond what seems necessary to acquit their responsibilities.
The DISCUSS isn't there to make documents "better" - that's for COMMENTs. A
DISCUSS there to catch a set of problems and to *block* the document's
progress until that problem is resolved.
I'll agree with you *if* you consider an unclear description of a feature of a
protocol, severe enough that reader of the specification are not able to build
interoperable implementations, as a problem for which a DISCUSS can be posted.
In my opinion, there are many ways in which document can be unclear beyond the
"motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough."
- Ralph
Joe