> On 1/7/21 9:27 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Speaking as 30 year IETF participant, including four years as an apps > > AD and many stints as a WG chair, this is not now and has never been > > my experience. I could not even begin count the number of times I've > > had to review mailing list discussions as part of reviewing a draft. > If the document you are supposed to be reviewing does not give enough context > so that you have to review the mailing list discussions then there is clearly > something wrong with the document. > That should have been your review comment. And in those cases where a choice made in the document doesn't quite jibe with your memory of what transpired in a meeting... which may be wrong... but you weren't on the list so don't know what went down later.. what then? Or when some text in a document published long ago and now being revised doesn't line up with operational practice you've seen, and you need to know the WG's reasoning for the choice, or for that matter whether they were even aware at the time that the alternate practice existed? Or any of a thousand other variations and permutations that can occur along the often highly nonlinear paths our documents often take? Or are you seriously suggesting that all of the discussions leading to every design choice, discussions which for the most trivial of matters can run into dozens of messages and thousands of words, should be faithfully captured in the document itself? And with this, I'm done. You are clearly operating in some other reality than the one I occupy, and I have no more time to waste trying to understand it. Ned
