On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian at olddog.co.uk> wrote:
The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that
are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have
been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication process.
Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week), like we have
in meetings (2hours), if there is time we can know when things are
needed to respond to, I usually ignore when there is no milestones or
planing-time. Does IESG have milestones for documents
processing/discussions?
Now the dangerous bit,
Suppose the AD raised her concern by writing a Comment or sending an email
and
balloting "No Objection." That would mean that the I-D would be approved
for
publication.
At this point either:
- the discussion goes on, but the document becomes an RFC anyway
or
- the responsible AD holds the document pending satisfactory completion of
the
discussion.
That AD SHOULD not hold for unlimited time, also should discuss the
issue with the WG related in limited time.
I suggest that the former is a bad result. Not that the authors/WG will
ignore
the discussion, but if they disagree on something the AD considers very
important, the authors/WG have no incentive to participate in the
discussion.
Only community rough concensus will decide the final result,
Of
course, all participants in this thread so far would never behave like that,
but
there is a possibility that this will happen for some authors.
Yes only if there is no time limits for work that should be done,
I also suggest that the latter introduces exactly the same amount of delay
as
the Discuss.
There is always possibility of large delay in systems that have no
time limits for processing or responds. Our time/work used is
important for IETF, IMO, no one should hold work/time only if able to
decide/notify/plan when/how to leave it go for all reaction
possibilities.
AB