On 8/10/16 9:33 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Repeat discussions waste time.
Not much, I don't think. I certainly cannot think of
an instance where a document has been anything other than
trivially delayed by a discussion about normative language.
And of course there are serious discussions about whether
something should be mandatory or recommended, and this
document really doesn't help those at all.
I suppose my broader point is that less-than-useful process
documents waste time, as well, and they clog up the
document stream. I'm afraid I tend to view documents like
this as contributing to our gradual but steady metamorphosis
into a conventional, process-bound standards body.
Our review process is not very
robust--a lot of things slip through the cracks.
Indeed they do, but typically not 2119 mistakes. I have
seen an awful lot of secdir and opsdir reviews go through
that don't have any useful security or operational review
but which have caught tons of nits.
Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature