On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 11:12 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > 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? I can't speak for the IETF as a whole; for the most part, classification as normative/informative is pretty obvious. But, if a reviewer feels strongly that something in a spec needs to be fixed, seems likely that the reviewer will classify the issue as "normative". > 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? I suggest we depend on the IETF as a whole ... by publishing and discussing the Discuss comments on a widely read mailing list. > > > > 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. Agreed and such obligation (which is the usual case now) would be a good thing. > The other is that working groups rarely develop solutions. Participants or > small sub-groups develop solutions; working groups review and approve. Good point. > 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. So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. - Ralph > > 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