On 2011-08-31 09:51, Fred Baker wrote:
...
> 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.
Not if the draft has been updated and the AD doesn't either cancel the DISCUSS within
a reasonable time*, or explain why the update is insufficient. This happens, probably
as often as authors failing to address an issue within a reasonable time. Whichever
party is responsible for the delay should be subject to a timeout, surely.
That said, I disagree with Keith. The current DISCUSS criteria were written
for a very specific reason - to get rid of the type of DISCUSS listed in the
"non-criteria". There was a lot of analysis done of documents that were stuck
in the IESG for months in the 2004/2005 timeframe, and the non-criteria describe
the problem cases - DISCUSSes that were not actionable or simply expressed the
fact that the AD didn't like the WG's informed consensus.
Of course nothing's perfect and I'm sure the criteria could be improved. But
not having them was much worse.
* for example, is "IESG Evaluation::AD Followup (for 32 days)" a reasonable
delay for a Discussing AD to review an updated draft [hint, hint]?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf