> So, as a recipient of a DISCUSS, I've learned the hard way that the > easiest way to resolve a DISCUSS is to ask the IESG member for the > exact text they want added and be done with it. I don't think this is > the correct way to do things, but after working on a document for x > number of years and trying to push it through the last mile, often > document editors just want to get it done. When, as sometimes happens, everybody is happy with the suggested text, that process works well. We get closure on the issue in a short time. The problem is when authors or WGs demand that the IESG provide text that resolves a thorny technical problem. Sometimes the IESG needs to say "no, you can't do X, and it's your job - not ours - to find a different way to solve that problem". IESG is in a much better position to find technical flaws than to craft delicate compromises between competing interests. And sometimes it is counterproductive for the AD to suggest a compromise even when he has an idea for something that might work -as WG participants will fight an idea from an AD more than they would fight the same idea from one of their own. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf