On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 19:56 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple: > > > > 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative > > concern that > > involves the viability of the specification. > > not reasonable. even merely informative text can cause > interoperability problems if it is wrong or misleading. As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is likely grey enough to make this suggestion unworkable... > > 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern > > to the > > mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear > > direction > > as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the > > detail > > about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue > > that has > > the goal of specifying that detail. > > not reasonable. it's fine for an AD to provide suggestions as to how > to resolve an issue, but it's not the AD's job to actually resolve > issues that need to be sorted out at length either within the WG or > between that WG and other parties. I agree with the first clause; the concern must be explained and motivated in detail. The WG - not the AD or the doc authors in isolation - should develop the solution. > > In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is > > intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to > > force > > review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a > > valid > > showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. > > such a mechanism already exists. > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf