Keith, > > 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. > > >> 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?" How about requiring to produce working code (and perhaps operational experience) ? Yakov. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf