On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:59:01PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > Well, if the discussion (on the mailing list) was so good, then the > number of changes to the document should be very precise, and should of > course, be in an email on the mailing list, right? Not necessarily. Especially in the sorts of cases I'm thinking about, one sometimes sees two or three different proposals for text, general kicking around of large issues, and so on. It's the editors' responsibility to synthesise that input and come up with final text that reflects the views of the WG. The text might have gone to the list before being incorporated, but might as easily have been put into the draft where it was needed, and the list sent a pointer. In case it wasn't clear, I'm really only thinking of the sort of large-scale changes or discussions that will sometimes affect drafts, typically when a major substantive issue (like of principle) has to be dealt with. Small and narrowly focussed issues can almost always be worked out on list. But if we only ever had issues that could be worked out on list, then we wouldn't need to have IETF meetings at all. If there's some progress in the sort of large issue of this sort, I want chairs to have the freedom to include that progress in their consideration. (Indeed, there's an argument to be made that the particular irritant that kicked off this discussion is exactly that sort of case, although we seem to be thrashing it out on the list anyway.) I know we can all think of 20 minute presentations 15 of which were details of the entire history of a WG draft; I don't believe that is as valuable as using in-person time to hash out the large problems facing a WG, and if there is late input to the latter class of discussion I'm all for including it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf