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. Informative text that leads to such problems is incorrectly classified; it must be normative if it causes interoperability problems. >> 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. An AD can't merely raise an issue without specifying the criteria by which the issue can be resolved. Being able to cause a problem or roadblock without being required to state the conditions to remove it is a recipe for abuse. >> 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. Right now the onus is on the author to get around such a roadblock; the onus ought to be on the AD to justify it first. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf