> > 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 disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically > astute than the rest of us. I would actually feel more comfortable with > ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the > same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment > should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where > everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides > technical input can be held accountable. > > If whoever wants to provide technical input to make a significant change > in a specification, be it an AD or a WG chair or ..., can't make a > sufficiently convincing case, in an open WG mailing list, that there at > least might not be "rough consensus" for a specification, then I would > say the specification doesn't need the change. I tend to agree with Ralph here. I've had very good dealings with ADs when they bring their DISCUSS to the WG mailing list. This helps to resolve the issue; sometimes making the WG realize something which they missed, and sometimes even the AD realizes that the WG has considered their DISCUSS and rejected it for technically sound reasons. Engaging in WG discusses is time consuming, but I think it is consistent with the broad principle of "rought consensus and running code." John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf