Bert,
FWIW, that is always how I have taken the list and why I have
appreciated the effort, both when you led the initial version
and the IESG's effort to clarify things now. I, at least, also
appreciated the "DISCUSS criteria" document in the same spirit
-- the more the community understands about what the IESG
expects or requires, and on what issues the IESG considers it
appropriate to block documents regardless of consensus in the
developing group or the community in general, the better off we
will all be... and the less work both editors and the IESG
should have to do.
But, in the presence of something that seemed to express a
strong preference turning into a firm, and very broad, rule in a
way that some of us found surprising, it seems worth the effort
on this round to push a little bit further in the direction of
clarity.
john
--On Tuesday, 08 July, 2008 22:28 +0200 Bert Wijnen - IETF
<bertietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John Klensin writes:
>
>> IMO, the IESG should be spending energy evaluating only those
>> conditions that require judgment as to appropriateness, i.e.,
>> the SHOULDs.
>>
>
> The ID-Checklist was (and I believe still IS) intended to do
> just that. When a document shepherd does answer the questions
> of RFC4848 in section 3.1,
> then the shepherd (often WG chair) is asked to confirm that he
> did check of the document to meet the ID-Checklist (see
> question 1.g on page 6). So it happens BEFORE one or many ADs
> go spend a lot of time on the document. And it was
> specifically intended to NOT cause surprised and to prepare the
> document in a good shape before being submitted for review by
> many people outside the WG.
>
> Bert
>> john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf