Cullen Jennings schrieb:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts
but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If
they know they have a problem(s), it would be *far* better to air that
sooner rather than later for all parties concerned.
I agree with the earlier is better than later for comments from anyone,
AD or not.
A few interesting side cases on this. Some ADs (more than one actually)
recently suggested to a WG that something there were doing was likely to
result in in a DISCUSS when it reached the IESG. One of the WG members
appealed the IESG trying to manipulate WG consensus. Sort of left me
scratching my head on why the WG would not want to know that early but
evidently some folks don't.
...
Cullen, in case you're talking about APP and HTTP authentication...: my
recollection is that that WG member in fact tried to *defend* the WG
consensus. The "new" (rough) WG consensus (after the announcement of a
forthcoming DISCUSS) IMHO clearly falls into the category "we don't care
enough to pursue the discussion". And that is really A Bad Thing.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf