Hi Lakshminath,
At 07:11 27-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Is it really necessary for all the battles to repeat on the IETF
list? Why can't the shepherding AD judge the overall consensus?
No, it is not necessary. One could read the WG discussion of the
topic instead of rehashing the same arguments on the IETF list. The
shepherd is there to gather information, get the document through the
various stages and provide coordination.
The PACT I-D may be a useful read:
"An IETF effort is designed to resolve engineering choices for one
issue and then move to a new issue. It is not reasonable to permit
arbitrary criticisms to be raised late in the process, derailing the
incremental effort of a WG.
It is always reasonable to raise fundamental engineering problems,
but it is essential to distinguish these from matters of engineering
aesthetics. In particular, the IETF Last Call and IESG review
periods are not intended for second-guessing a WG's design choices --
the purpose of an IETF Last Call and IESG review is to focus on the
overall viability of the document."
I'll also highlight a few points from RFC 3774:
Participants are frequently allowed to re-open previously closed
issues just to replay parts of the previous discussion without
introducing new material. This may be either because the decision
has not been clearly documented, or it may be a maneuver to try to
get a decision changed because the participant did not concur with
the consensus originally.
On the other hand, the decision making process must allow discussions
to be re-opened if significant new information comes to light or
additional experience is gained which appears to justify alternative
conclusions for a closed issue. One cause that can lead to
legitimate attempts to re-open an apparently closed issue is the
occurrence of 'consensus by exhaustion'.
The IETF culture of openness also tends to tolerate participants who,
whilst understanding the principles of the IETF, disagree with them
and actively ignore them. This can be confusing for newer
participants, but they need to be made aware that the IETF does not
exclude such people.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf