John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 01 January, 2007 15:30 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was using "wordsmithing" rather broadly. My probably
idiosyncratic meaning
of "wordsmithing" here was "will this DISCUSS change the
mechanics of the protocol or not". If the answer is no, we're
really just making the document
more ready for publication IMO. Something that does bring
that possibility is obviously a lot more serious. It's been
my admittedly limited experience that
my version of "wordsmithing" is a lot more common, and the
source of a lot of delay to varying degrees of dubiousness.
One meaning of "wordsmithing" resulting from a DISCUSS that I
think is an entirely worthwhile activity is where the
mechanics of the protocol, as implemented by a WG participant,
will not change one whit, but where the implementation by a
non-participant changes from "improbable" to "possible",
because it's clear what the words were intended to say.
Another example of "wordsmithing" that does not change the
mechanics of the protocol, but is nevertheless important, is
the IANA considerations stuff - while it does not change the
protocol as such, it does change the "meta-protocol" of
extending the protocol later. That's important.
Harald,
I could be wrong, but I believe that, if every instance of a
"discuss" for "wordsmithing" purposes fell into one of the
categories you have described above, we would not be having this
discussion. I continue to believe that the document that
started the original thread is not the right place to fix the
problem. However, I suggest that there is a perception in the
community --one that can be fairly well documented with specific
episodes-- of long approval and publication delays that started
with a "discuss" about issues of prose or presentation that do
not have either significant "this is wrong" protocol impact or
the level of impact you describe above.
I think we're on the same page (or at least in the same chapter of the
book).
My note was just intended to say that I don't agree with the reading of
Michael's statement that says "a DISCUSS is just make-work if it doesn't
require a protocol change". I don't think Michael agrees with that
reading either, but it was possible to read his note that way.
That, of course, leads to another discussions: when evaluating
IESG or RFC Editor performance, we tend to assume that any delay
between when the token is passed back to a WG or author and when
it returns is a WG or author problem and doesn't count. In
some cases, it clearly is a WG or author problem. But, in
others, it is at least partially the result of a natural
reaction: "after all of the work that went into this, we just
don't have the energy to deal with that level of nit-picking".
And since, unfortunately, there is often no way for an outsider
to differentiate the two, we need to better understand and
appreciate the costs of "discuss" positions that do not have a
clear, substantive, basis appropriate to the maturity level of
the proposal, even ones whose intent is to get additional
explanations and understanding, to overall IETF productivity.
The problem of working groups that emit documents as their last gasp
before dying from lack of energy is, in my opinion, a much harder
problem to tackle than that of browbeating the IESG into DISCUSS
discipline - and one where, if the IESG's energy was suddenly magically
to double, I'd definitely advise directing the windfall surplus.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf