I would like to weigh in to support Pete's viewpoint. Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Indeed. If Last Call results in an issue that requires a more general, > in-depth review, I think the presumption of that text is that it's time > to send it back to the WG. A lot of the problem is that responsible ADs don't do this often enough. (The <ietf> list is a _really_bad_ place to try to resolve such things. We _always_ find WG participants calling "Foul!" and I'm sure there are others thinking it...) > When Last Call identifies an issue that was missed or mis-evaluated > by the WG (perhaps due to JCK's observation about WGs that remain > homogeneous and insulated), considerable cost and detriment should > be expected, and is probably appropriate. (It's hard to fully support Pete here, but I do. "Appropriate", however, doesn't mean "something to die for": it merely means "the world would be a better place if it worked this way".) > We have all seen efforts that have gone completely off the rails, > perhaps due to bad> management choices, Pete certainly knows we get what we pay for, when it comes to management skills... > and it is a sign of pathology if that's only noticed at Last Call > time. Yes, it should probably have been handled during the WG process > or by interim appeals, We're scared of appeals, without good reason. (Heck, _I_ was scared of them five years ago!) The IESG, IMHO, is far better able to process appeals than it was five years ago; and I believe they're essentially ready to formalize a way to deal with appeals without shooting the messenger. > but if Last Call is where it's finally dealt with, deal with it we must. (Pete _is_ the eternal optimist here: there-aint-no-such-thing-as "must".) But I quite agree, the world would be a better place if we dealt with it when it comes up in last-call rather than leave it for implementors to deal with in incompatible ways. > My main complaint is that people are treating this as a game, with > points that are "won" or "lost". YES!!!! > Telling people that they "lost" or that "it's just sour grapes" is > obnoxious and has no place in the discussion. There's the eternal optimist, again... Name-calling _is_ the IETF way, :^( :^( We've exhausted yet-another IETF Chair trying to cure people of discourtesy so obvious that you'd get sued for it in a normal world. I'm not fool enough to think I'll have any better luck; but I can at least speak in support of Pete! > If someone is abusing the process by bringing up previously > well-considered topics, of course the person running the Last Call has > to shut that down. Reality check! There isn't anybody "running last-call". If there were, s/he would have no tools to "shut that down". > I can even tolerate the occasional random participant saying, > "Pete, you know this issue was discussed at length, and you didn't > even bother to fairly say why you think the WG came to the wrong > conclusion, so this is really just rehashing." (We ought to be able to find a way to ensure someone says that in private email...) But I have a suggestion (which I guess is why I'm bothering to type this): We have pretty good archive tools availabe for every IETF mail-list. Occasionally, I see a posting, "Please read the thread starting at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l4Mi7p-KJanEP1FuEmCDclo6REA before posting any more on this subject." This is actually helpful! If the person has read the thread and _is_ merely repeating things already said in that thread, s/he deserves censure, and this will be obvious to anyone checking that thread. If this is new material to the person so advised, it will multiply greatly the "clue" level going forward. If the person can't be bothered to read the cited thread, then a referral to the sergeant-at-arms is justified. And people thinking of joining in will have the opportunity to increase their clue level _before_ making a fool of themselves. >> To Ted's point, indulging folk who 'did not have time' to participate >> earlier is frankly abusive of all those who did. > > Yeah, I don't find Ted's point at all convincing either. On the other > hand, if the WG didn't seek out required expertise and someone does > notice a showstopper, that's not abusive. The WG screwed up. I agree with Pete here, too. But I don't agree it's likely the WG Chairs or participants are likely to see it that way. Somebody will have to help them see this. The obvious choice is the Responsible AD; but if we limit our choices of ADs to those who agree this is their job, we might have trouble filling AD slots. :^( :^( -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>