On 2008-08-10 07:58, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, 09 August, 2008 20:52 +0200 "Bert Wijnen
> \\(IETF\\)" <bertietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> John and Dave,
>>
>> I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the
>> ID_Checklist
>> too much as if it is part of our (rigid) process. Our
>> processes aredescribed
>> in formally approved BCP documents.
>>
>> The ID-Checklist is intended (or at least that is how it
>> started, and as far
>> as I am concerned that is still the intention) to help in a
>> few areas:
>
> Bert,
>
> We are in complete and utter agreement with each other about the
> appropriate role of the ID_Checklist. For better or worse, the
> IESG apparently does not agree, as evidenced most recently in
> their response to my appeal about turning a suggestion from the
> original version of the Checklist into a firm rule without
> having that explicitly confirmed by the community.
>
> We also agree that revising the Checklist into a document that
> is suitable for use as part of a package of firm rules is a
> rather different job than updating it while being consistent
> with its original purpose.
>
> So I withdraw my suggestion and comments but strongly suggest
> that you make sure that your intentions for the document and
> those of the IESG are in synch before proceeding much further.
I'd like to say that both as an author and as a reviewer, I have
always found both the ID checklist and the IDnits checker to be
of immense pragmatic value. Obviously, if the checklist or the
checker complains about something that isn't obviously a bug,
the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter "think"
mode or even "negotiate" mode. I agree that it's a good idea
to be clear about that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf