+1. Does "this is a discuss discuss question" mean that "I just want to discuss this, it's a nit, don't worry" or does it mean "we ABSOLUTELY MUST DISCUSS this and nothing's moving until we do!" Without other context, you don't know. Tony Hansen tony@xxxxxxx Eric Gray wrote: > Brian, > > As a matter of personal preference, I would very much > prefer not to see process constructions that require repeated > use of the status in order to disambiguate the meaning of the > status. In other words, having to clarify that a DISCUSS is > (really) a discuss (and presumably not something else) is not > the way to clear things up - not even "clear enough." > > Either DISCUSS means what it implies (maybe we add some > separate status for BLOCK), or we change the state name to an > intentionally more ambiguous name (like HOLD, or PENDING). > >> >> I strongly agree with John's suggestion that ADs should clearly >> distinguish a comment where they really want discussion from >> something that they view as a sticking point. One of the cleared >> DISCUSSes on 2821bis starts thus: "This is a discuss discuss >> question....". Is that clear enough? _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf