The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
[...]
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG.
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others.
I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either "let the AD win" or "let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it".
Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to "what can you add/change to appease the other AD" rather than "what is sensible to add".
It's as likely to boil down to "how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created?" From a process viewpoint the two cases (one where a clueless AD is pushing back against a clueful WG, and another where a clueless WG is being pushed back on by a clueful AD) are equivalent, and it's difficult to change the process in a way that solves one of those problems without making the other one worse.
(and yes, both of these are extreme (though not rare) cases - it can also be a conflict between different kinds of cluefulness, where there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it's hard for any individual to see enough of the picture on short notice to understand what kind of compromise would be reasonable.)
Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf