Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly fluffy comments because I believe fully stating each point by point things would have actually make it significantly harder for the editor of the documents to find a good solution. In both cases I believe the editor pretty much understands the issue and if I get requests to please rewrite to be a reasonable discuss, I'm glad to do that after the meeting. On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > Cullen, > > Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your > DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I > appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the > English language is poor (they are both probably true), but could > you explain how one of your most recent DISCUSSes: > > "Cullen Jennings: > > Discuss [2008-03-05]: > There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes for > SRTP, so I'm glad to see a document that covers this topic > for MIKEY. For that reason, I think it's really important > to get this right. It looks to me like some of the issues > EKR raises need to be fixed in order to achieve that." > > does not fit into the DISCUSS non-criteria? > > "Unfiltered external party reviews. While an AD is welcome to > consult with external parties, the AD is expected to evaluate, to > understand and to concur with issues raised by external parties. > Blindly cut-and-pasting an external party review into a DISCUSS is > inappropriate if the AD is unable to defend or substantiate the > issues raised in the review." > > You chose to not even cut-and-paste the comments. > > I also wonder which of the DISCUSS criteria fit to advance that > specific document to an informational RFC. Are we to guess which > of the "the issues EKR raises" the authors need to fix? > > Needless to say, we don't need to debate the specifics of that > document here, but whereas your intent is honorable, the externally > observable behavior is unfortunately different. Sorry for picking > on you; I can probably find other similar examples on other ADs, but > I was thinking that the ION is not a BCP and so I have no basis to > raise the issue. > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding the ION or perhaps as Brian says that > there should be some flexibility in the application of the rules. > > regards, > Lakshminath > > On 3/6/2008 1:04 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >> Ted, >> Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the >> same boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the >> parameters of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official >> status of this document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end >> result is of several experiments. I believe Russ is working to get >> that some IESG agenda time. >> Cullen >> On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: >>> The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without >>> clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing >>> of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the >>> standing is much of an issue. But for the "discuss criteria" ION, >>> I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult >>> to know >>> whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the >>> extent to which the issuing body is bound by it. >>> >>> I think this is a very bad thing. >>> >>> I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status as >>> an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG DISCUSSes are >>> a very serious part of our process at this point. Having a >>> community >>> agreed standard to which IESG members could be held was always a >>> better >>> path than than a document approved only by the IESG. Now that >>> the ION experiment is over and the status of its document is in >>> limbo, things are even worse. >>> >>> The current document is here: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html >>> >>> for those readers playing the home game. >>> >>> Ted Hardie >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF mailing list >> IETF@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf