On May 15, 2013, at 10:39 AM 5/15/13, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> 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'll agree with you *if* you consider an unclear description of a feature of a protocol, severe enough that reader of the specification are not able to build interoperable implementations, as a problem for which a DISCUSS can be posted. In my opinion, there are many ways in which document can be unclear beyond the "motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough." - Ralph > > Joe