Folks,
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
Let's be clear:
A "Discuss" blocks the document. It is an exercise of power.
It is necessary and appropriate to use a Discuss when there is
a fundamental problem with the document, or a strong indication
of a fundamental problem.
We should all think hard about the word "fundamental", because
use of a Discuss for anything other than that is an abuse of
power; it wastes resources and good will.
ADs make "comments" that do not block the document. Presumably they would not
make comments unless they thought they would be heeded.
This is good, because my own experience is that working groups tend to be
mindful of *all* AD statements, Discuss or Comment, since most working groups
really do want a specification to be good quality.
The difference is that, as noted by someone else's post, the working group
worries about "clearing" the Discuss. That's different from worrying about
quality.
Working groups either do or do not worry about (their definition of) quality.
Alln exercise in IESG power or a failure to exercise power won't change that. It
might salvage a marginal spec, but it won't make any difference for a spec that
is solid or one that is garbage.
Getting a "discuss" vs. "comment" does not change this.
Using a Discuss will not make bad work good. Using a Comment will not result in
a good working group's ignoring the input.
What we are caught in, I believe, is a failure to be careful, as in selective.
Working groups are careful or sloppy. So are ADs.
We need to get into synch about both the exercise of power and the goal of
quality. It needs to have more to do with satisfying real-world need than with
bureaucracy or abstract idealism about the purity of architecture.
Bureaucracy and idealism can be quite helpful, but only *in the service of*
satisfying real-world need.
We used to be pretty good at that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf