I read Dave's words "clear statement of what actions must be taken to clear the Discuss" not as requiring the specification of a complete fix, but rather as an indication of what needs to happen to the draft. Implementation details of meeting those requirements are left to the WG.
I agree with Dave on this point. - Ralph On 1/1/07 8:22 PM, "Keith Moore" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Something quite basic that is missing from the draft on >> Discuss Criteria is a requirement that any Discuss not only >> explain its precise normative basis, but that it give a clear >> statement of what actions must be taken to clear the Discuss. >> > > I strongly disagree. When a working group document fails to meet RFC > 2026 criteria for the intended status, it's not up to the AD voting > Discuss to fix the problem. The burden is on the WG to either convince > the IESG that its document does indeed meet RFC 2026 criteria, or to > bring the document in line with RFC 2026. > > While there is nothing wrong with an AD suggesting a simple fix to a > document problem if he or she can identify one, expecting the AD to fix > nontrivial problems is unrealistic and also encourages micromanagement. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
