Sam, I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I also don't understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially (in reference to your point about Cullen holding his DISCUSS beyond resolution of Russ's). I have seen better examples where for instance your DISCUSS quotes what you think needs to be resolved from the external review. Likewise, Russ states what needs to be resolved from the external review. Recently Tim put a DISCUSS on another document based on my comments stating what his specific concerns are. In all those cases, it is at least somewhat clear as to what the AD might want. In closing, perhaps some of us would like to be behind a DISCUSS that states "resolve some of the issues of a 3rd party." I for one find it very hard to work in that kind of an environment. From my view point, here is how the process looks: First we have to beg to know what the issues are, then propose text, only to have it dismissed after some time, propose text again, repeat that for a non-deterministic number of times and eventually hope that the AD is satisfied; repeat that for the next AD, and so on. That is seriously broken!! All I am asking for though is to just remove the first step for starters. We shouldn't have to ask to know what the DISCUSS is about. best regards, Lakshminath On 3/6/2008 1:51 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti >>>>>> <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Lakshminath> Cullen, Lakshminath> Thank you for your statement that > you are keen to make sure your Lakshminath> DISCUSSes are within the > parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I Lakshminath> appreciate > it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English > Lakshminath> language is poor (they are both probably true), but > could you explain Lakshminath> how one of your most recent DISCUSSes: > > > Lakshminath> "Cullen Jennings: > > Lakshminath> Discuss [2008-03-05]: Lakshminath> There has been a lot > of discussion about keying modes for Lakshminath> SRTP, so I'm glad > to see a document that covers this topic Lakshminath> for MIKEY. For > that reason, I think it's really important Lakshminath> to get this > right. It looks to me like some of the issues Lakshminath> EKR raises > need to be fixed in order to achieve that." > > Presumably Cullen is agreeing with the discuss position that I'm > holding and that Russ is holding. If Cullen plans to hold his > discuss position past the resolution of Russ's discuss (Russ has > agreed to take on mine), then I agree his discuss is inappropriate. > I'm not sure that Cullen made the best use of the tool, but I'm not > sure he did anything wrong either. I believe that my discuss is > consistent with the discuss criteria because while it is based on an > external review, I've explained what parts of the review I consider > blocking. I haven't read Russ's discuss. I believe that if he > selected what parts of the review he considers are a valid discuss,or > if he simply asked you to respond to Eric's comments (saying that he > believes last call discussion is still ongoing), then it is a valid > discuss. The second discuss (please respond to Eric and conclude the > last call discussion) is a process discuss not a content discuss; he > would be asking you to actually engage in a discussion. If he later > believed that Tim had incorrectly evaluated the consensus of that > discussion, he might change his position to another process discuss > about a consensus problem. > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf