Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]