On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian at olddog.co.uk> wrote: > The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that > are > intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have > been > raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may > unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication process. Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week), like we have in meetings (2hours), if there is time we can know when things are needed to respond to, I usually ignore when there is no milestones or planing-time. Does IESG have milestones for documents processing/discussions? > > Now the dangerous bit, > > Suppose the AD raised her concern by writing a Comment or sending an email > and > balloting "No Objection." That would mean that the I-D would be approved > for > publication. > > At this point either: > - the discussion goes on, but the document becomes an RFC anyway > or > - the responsible AD holds the document pending satisfactory completion of > the > discussion. That AD SHOULD not hold for unlimited time, also should discuss the issue with the WG related in limited time. > > I suggest that the former is a bad result. Not that the authors/WG will > ignore > the discussion, but if they disagree on something the AD considers very > important, the authors/WG have no incentive to participate in the > discussion. Only community rough concensus will decide the final result, > Of > course, all participants in this thread so far would never behave like that, > but > there is a possibility that this will happen for some authors. Yes only if there is no time limits for work that should be done, > > I also suggest that the latter introduces exactly the same amount of delay > as > the Discuss. There is always possibility of large delay in systems that have no time limits for processing or responds. Our time/work used is important for IETF, IMO, no one should hold work/time only if able to decide/notify/plan when/how to leave it go for all reaction possibilities. AB