Thanks for the clarification Cullen. I appreciate it. Speaking from the view point of someone on the other side, more often than not, a detailed DISCUSS is much more helpful. Thank you again. best wishes, Lakshminath On 3/6/2008 2:23 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > 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