Joe,
Broken, agreed.
Yep.
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.
Yes, but note that there are multiple aspects of "unclear". You cite above the
motivation aspect. There's also a DISCUSS criteria for other forms of unclear,
e.g., if I can't figure out what I should do in the implementation, it would be
an issue. The criteria document confirms:
"The specification is impossible to implement due to technical or clarity
issues."
Sure, but note that there is a specific NON-DISCUSS criteria on this point:
Disagreement with informed WG decisions that do not exhibit problems outlined
in Section 3.1 (DISCUSS Criteria). In other words, disagreement in
preferences among technically sound approaches.
Finding technical mistakes is good, but imposing the IESG's preferred
technical solution over the WG's preference is inappropriate, but happens.
If you are hit with a Discusss that is about preferring another technical
solution, you should push back.
Jari