On 5/9/19 7:03 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Adam's draft seems to me to call for ADs to not ask/chat/discuss such issues, and I don't agree with that level of non-discussion being the expectation.
To be clear, what I'm trying to establish is an expectation that these issues won't block publication, which is a rather different thing than suggesting that they not be raised. At the same time, Joel Halpern put his finger on the heart of the matter, which is that one of the major reasons we don't produce bis documents as frequently as would benefit implementors is a fear of late surprise during IESG review on the basis of unchanged text. Consequently, we really need a pretty strong signal that using the process described in this document is unlikely to result in such a situation.
That said, I think John Klensin raises an interesting process point about normatively constraining ballot positions, so I plan to reword this as an expectation rather than a constraint in the next version of the document. I'm hoping you'll find the new phrasing more palatable.
/a
