On 8/10/16 9:33 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Repeat discussions waste time. Not much, I don't think. I certainly cannot think of an instance where a document has been anything other than trivially delayed by a discussion about normative language. And of course there are serious discussions about whether something should be mandatory or recommended, and this document really doesn't help those at all. I suppose my broader point is that less-than-useful process documents waste time, as well, and they clog up the document stream. I'm afraid I tend to view documents like this as contributing to our gradual but steady metamorphosis into a conventional, process-bound standards body. > Our review process is not very > robust--a lot of things slip through the cracks. Indeed they do, but typically not 2119 mistakes. I have seen an awful lot of secdir and opsdir reviews go through that don't have any useful security or operational review but which have caught tons of nits. Melinda
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature