Lakshminath,
On 2008-06-28 02:09, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
<snip>
>
> My point was this: if a WG actually missed anything substantial and that
> comes out during an IETF last call, and the shepherding AD agrees, the
> document gets sent back to the WG. If the shepherding AD also misses or
> misjudges, any member of the IESG can send it back to the WG for
> resolution. What I think is not acceptable is for the author and one or
> more DISCUSS ADs to hack up the document and publish it.
I completely agree. We can get into trouble if there's disagreement
whether the DISCUSS issue is only "important editorial" or substantive,
because if it's editorial, the WG really doesn't need to be involved.
Of course, sending a disputed issue back to the WG is 100% guaranteed
to cause delay, and sometimes a long delay if the dispute is profound.
That's what a quantitative analysis can't see, and neither can
a qualitative analysis if it only looks at the finished RFC.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf