Brian,
> There was consensus to put forward the ISD proposal, which the IESG
> kicked
> back, with an explanation of its issues, which you can find in the
> newtrk archive. That didn't lead to a revised ISD proposal.
So that it's clear, I am not now nor was I then a proponent of ISDs. I
think they're too complex. However, I don't think the IESG provided
appropriate guidance. Here is the last paragraph from the note you
reference:
> Regardless of what approach is taken, we need to consider the
> procedural implications of these changes. We believe that significant
> effort needs to be put into thinking about how these changes will be
> automated. The only way to constantly improve the IETF's document
> throughput is to maximize automatic tools. Before any ISD proposal
> can be implemented, we need to understand how it would be implemented,
> how it would modify the existing automation tools, who would implement it
> and what the costs would be. This effort needs to be closely coordinated
> with the ISD proposal: while these details may not be appropriate to
> include in the ISD document we need to confirm implementation is
> possible while we can still make changes to the proposal.
The IESG notes that there would be tool issues but doesn't say who
should address those issues. Was it newtrk? If so, how should the
issues be addressed? To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
I would ask that in the future, when the IESG rejects a working group
consensus document, it should be more clear. It should say one of the
following:
1. The IESG disagrees with this document in its entirety and refuses
to advance it, and here's why; or
2. The IESG disagrees with part of this document and refuses to
advance it, here's why, and here's what the WG must do to fix it.
I think that fundamentally the IESG and the working group disagreed,
leading to a stalemate. In a stalemate, the status quo wins. Not that
I see anything wrong with that, but if you wanted change you could have
been more prescriptive, and you weren't. The result was (1) in (2)'s
clothing.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf