> > > 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative > > > concern that involves the viability of the specification. > > As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is > likely grey enough to make this suggestion unworkable... interesting point. first question, then, is why has the ietf been finding it important to make the distinction between the two? second question is how do we distinguish between Discuss items that really do pertain to "it won't work" and "it's unacceptably deficient" concerns, versus an AD's personal preferences and whims? > > > 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. > > 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. This raises two issues. One is that the focus of the suggestion is making sure that an AD who asserts a late-stage veto is meaningfully obligated to work constructively to remove it. The other is that working groups rarely develop solutions. Participants or small sub-groups develop solutions; working groups review and approve. When a random participant raises a concern during specification development, the working group can readily acknowledge the issue and add it to the workload, or it can fail to gain traction. In the former case, the working group takes responsibility for finding the solution. In the latter, the issue is, effectively, turned back to the person with the concern. It is up to them to find some way to get the working group to embrace the concern; the usual way to do this is to propose a solution, so that the working group has a more solid sense of the topic. Now we move to a late-stage AD veto. The working group has put years of effort in and lots of review. Here comes an AD -- typically one who has not been involved until this point -- blocking progress by stating some concern. If the concern is obviously valid to everyone, then there is no issue. Everyone goes wow, we sure are glad you caught that, and goes off to fix it. The problem is when the AD's concern is not obviously valid, or at least not obviously valid as a valid reason for blocking progress. Today, there is almost no cost to the AD in these situations and, therefore, no pressure on them to be reasonable and constructive to resolve it. We need to change limits and incentives, to fix this. > > > 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. If you are referring to a classic Appeal, then that is too heavyweight and onerous. The cost to the participant, of making an appeal, is significant. If you are referring to something else, what is is and where is it documented? d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf