> > Joe> delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging > > Joe> feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather > > Joe> than technical review). > > > > Sam: > > I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;) > > > > Seriously, I think most people would be really annoyed if I > > wrote up a discuss of the form "this sucks for foo reason; > > please coordinate with bar wg until they are happy then I'll > > clear." They would be even more unhappy if I wrote up the more > > realistic "please take this to bar wg and when they are happy > > I'll re review." > > Actually, I would consider a diplomatically-worded version of > the former very useful. The latter is the problem - it lacks > the reason the WG is being added as a hurdle. > > IMO, anytime a doc is held-up via Discuss, the reason for the > discuss and the criteria under which it can be cleared should > both be required. I fully agree with Joe, that kind of direct and concrete feedback would at least make me much happier than what we have today, when I have to find out myself whether there were any discuss comments, who made them, hopefully to some degree understand what the issues were about, and make qualified guesses on what I (as chair or author) am expected to do to address them. /L-E _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf