-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: >> 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. The process of AD review in 2026 specifies a few distinct things: - check for end-runs around WGs - check for inter-WG consistency - check for clarity commensurate with the doc level - check for tech quality commensurate with the doc level The IAB is there to check for consistency with the the Internet, of course. There's no point in the AD review at which their _input_ to the document is solicited by the process in 2026; IMO, that's supposed to have happened beforehand (though it often does not it is not a good excuse for late input). >>> 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?" That is a different issue when it occurs. > 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. They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. > (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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcWYoE5f5cImnZrsRArZQAJ9zYKX8hne5hQ9d/sTtbCGQ2C1FzQCfZTZV GrP1TrjmCp7KMnmBoz75hvA= =x8dA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf