IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically
authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith
On May 15, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
I strongly disagree with what the NON-DISCUSS criteria say. DISCUSS isn't
just for blocking documents. And document quality is as important (in the
sense that poor document quality can lead to as many interoperability or
other problems) as technical correctness.
The interpretation of this particular NON-DISCUSS criterion that Joe has
given is simply wrong. The key word to pay attention to to see the error is
"motivation." The point of this criterion is to eliminate a very specific
sort of stall that has been known to happen in the past: the stall where the
AD doesn't understand why the document is being put forward at all, and
therefore blocks the document until the authors explain the motivation behind
the document to the satisfaction of the AD who is holding the DISCUSS.
This is a real issue that has created real problems in the past, and that is
why it is in the NON-DISCUSS criteria. But this criterion _does not_ mean
that a criticism that the document itself is unclear is not a valid reason to
hold a DISCUSS on it. In fact, it's an excellent reason to hold a DISCUSS
on it. A lack of clarity in a document can result in it being implemented
incorrectly, or in the case of a BCP, interpreted incorrectly. Or in
extreme cases, not read at all. This is a bad outcome, worth spending time
on, even if the authors would rather be quit of it.