On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Keith
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear
enough. At the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked
because they provide capabilities beyond what seems necessary to
acquit their responsibilities.
The DISCUSS isn't there to make documents "better" - that's for
COMMENTs. A DISCUSS there to catch a set of problems and to *block*
the document's progress until that problem is resolved.
I strongly disagree with what the NON-DISCUSS criteria say. DISCUSS
isn't just for blocking documents. And document quality is as
important (in the sense that poor document quality can lead to as many
interoperability or other problems) as technical correctness.
Why are people trying to sabotage IESG?
Keith