On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > My point isn't that I expect multiple ADs to find the same problem > initially. What I expect to happen is that, say, Keith finds a flaw > and lodges a DISCUSS position. It's discussed, and the WG insists > that it's not a problem and shouldn't be changed. Keith maintains the > DISCUSS, and it's gone over on the telechat. At the end of that, > Keith still maintains the DISCUSS. More discussion among Keith, the > responsible AD, and the WG ensues, and it's still not resolved -- the > WG still refuses to change the spec, and Keith still maintains the > DISCUSS position. > > It's at THAT stage that at least one other AD should have read the > document, read Keith's DISCUSS position, and agreed with Keith. > That's not a very high bar. And *that* is where I say that if there's > still no one backing Keith's DISCUSS, even with his *asking* other ADs > to have a look, Keith needs to back down. Disagree in two aspects: 1. It can be very difficult to get other ADs to understand issues, especially in areas outside their expertise, when they're mired in other documents. Getting something fixed shouldn't rely on other members of IESG to pay attention to it. 2. Even if the document is approved over the AD's objection, I think it's completely unacceptable to bury the AD's technical objection. Expecting the AD to change his Discuss to an Abstain is dishonesty on the part of the organization. But at this point I'm repeating myself, and I don't think we're covering any new ground. So I'll either just hope that this made a useful impression on somebody, or I'll write up an Internet-Draft. I just think it's sad to see the level of technical review in IETF, which was already insufficient at the time that I was an AD, steadily eroding still further. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf