On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution of a DISCUSS might end up being a yes vote, a no objection vote, a request for clarification of the document. It should also be possible for an AD to say "now that I've understood better, I can't support this going forward" (for which ABSTAIN is not an appropriate label). > > It should never be wrong for an AD to vote DISCUSS, though it's reasonable to limit the amount of time during which a DISCUSS can stand for a particular document. > > It should also never be wrong for an AD to vote NO if the AD has initially voted DISCUSS, made a sincere effort to understand the issues, believes that he does so, and can state 2026 or other documented criteria for why the document is not suitable for approval. I agree in part. My problem is that even some ADs tell me that ADs sometimes behave as if they haven't done their job if they haven't produced a "discuss". A few months ago, I got a "discuss" on a document that in essence said "what should I be writing a 'discuss' about?". I have no problem with valid concerns, and many of the concerns raised are valid. It should be possible for a working group to produce a quality document and have the IESG simply approve it, however. I'm not sure it is. > Discuss votes should time out and be replaced by Abstain (if not explicitly changed by the AD) after say 45 days. There I disagree. If the AD raised a valid issue, the ball is in the author/wg's court to address it. They can game this rule by not responding until after 45 days. Personally, I would rather see the document returned to the author/wg if review results in a request for major changes. In my working group, we recently had one draft completely rewritten in the response to "discuss"es, and I pulled it back for the WG to decide whether it still had consensus around the resulting draft. I would say the same about a "discuss" that is not adequately responded to in 45 days; the IESG should clean it off their plate. > What's also not fair game is to "raise the bar" - to expect the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it was required to meet at the time of PS approval. Hmmm, the "demonstrated interoperability" requirement of DS/IS is in fact a raising of the bar,and one that has served us well. We don't (although IMHO we should) require even an implementation to go to PS. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf