Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:] > >> putting IESG statements on the tops of documents is a very icky >> business, *especially* on IETF consensus documents. The IESG really doesn't have the spare cycles to go there. >> I'd much rather tell the WG, "There's a bunch of IETF folks who came >> out during Last Call and said you have to fix this, so go fix it" >> than try to get the IESG into the business of writing text. When the IESG tries that, a _very_ common outcome is for the document to come back on the agenda with the responsible AD reporting "The authors declined that offer." ... at which point the IESG admits it doesn't have the spare cycles to go further. >> If there's not IETF-wide rough consensus for the document as-is, fix >> it or ditch it. The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just say No." (I wish we'd find boilerplate to record such "limited" consensus.) > the iesg can sort out the process. i really don't care. i gave at the > office (apologies fo ramerican idiom). what matters to me is that, if > this document is published that it is clear to the reader that doing > this is ill-advised. a deep dive into why it is ill-advised might be > educational, but i see it as optional. I'm not sure the OPSEC WG has the cycles to go there, either :^( (FWIW, I'm with Randy on this being a bad idea; but I doubt that actual operators pay much attention to RFCs when looking for operational advice.) Bottom line: _I_ really don't have the cycles to go there. :^( -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>