On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:50AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/3/2021 11:11 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > I checked the -09 and it covers the discuss bits just fine. > > I wasn't in a hurry to clear my discuss, though, since the nature of the > > ongoing discussions last week would arguably make for a discuss in its own > > right. > > > Since you mention it, I will question it. A Discuss is an exercise in > authority to prevent progress until a significant problem is fixed. Documents published on the IETF stream require IETF Consensus. If we are still arguing over what text to include relating to issues for which there is no prior discussion and prior determination of consensus, how can there be IETF consensus? (Note that I do not assert that any or all of the predicates are in fact true in this particular case, and would have to do a bit more research before taking a position on them.) -Ben > The various changes are almost certainly making the specification > better, but were they essential to achieve an adequate 'experiment'? > The document went through 3 months of discussion on an established list, > one month of IETF last call, and an IESG review, with no one noting or > demanding any of these changes. > > It is not as if that sort of extended process guarantees adequacy, but > it's nothing, either. > > Again, it's not that the document is not better, but 'better' is an > infinite task. > > For which of these changes would its absence have ensured failure? > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
