> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 10:05 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document? > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > By contrast, working groups tend to contain more expertise than may > > be available in an IETF LC; that's partly why they're formed. I've > > never been an AD before, but I imagine I might consider the WG > > consensus to be at least a little bit more weighty than IETF LC > > resistance. > > I rather hope not. As someone else has argued in this thread, WGs > tend to be narrowly focussed. The IETF LC is at least partly, as I > understand it, to make sure that something which seems an obviously > good idea to the WG doesn't have all manner of implications that the > WG perhaps did not consider. Maybe I'm taking your words too extremely, but if WGs tend to be narrowly focused, then how can they be reasonably assured of the success of anything they produce? I'm imagining a model here wherein a WG produces documents suffering from a focus that is too narrow, those documents go to IETF LC or the IESG, and are invariably shot down because they failed to account for this or that outside of that focus. It would take a huge number of iterations to get anything done. Rather, I would hope they would have or seek to have enough people in them to bring breadth as well as depth, specifically so that they aren't producing things prone to raise objections. Perhaps we see this as the role of the AD that is overseeing that particular WG, but that seems a huge burden to put on one person. For the working groups and documents into which I've put work, I've made a point of seeking the breadth so that the reviews of the various directorates, whose comments are influential with the IESG, don't end up stalling publication. I would hope this is common practice. > It seems to me that very strong reaction in the IETF generally to a > proposal demands convincing counter-arguments from those who support > the publication. I refuse to have an opinion about the example under > discussion, but surely we don't want to build in some preference for > what the WG says. I suspect the documents from a WG should carry within them enough instructive text to include those arguments up-front, so if there's any objection voiced at IETF LC, it's bound to be new material. The re-hashing of the same arguments made in the WG during IETF LC seems like a waste of time to me unless there are new details available. -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf