+1. Does "this is a discuss discuss question" mean that "I just want to
discuss this, it's a nit, don't worry" or does it mean "we ABSOLUTELY
MUST DISCUSS this and nothing's moving until we do!" Without other
context, you don't know.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Gray wrote:
> Brian,
>
> As a matter of personal preference, I would very much
> prefer not to see process constructions that require repeated
> use of the status in order to disambiguate the meaning of the
> status. In other words, having to clarify that a DISCUSS is
> (really) a discuss (and presumably not something else) is not
> the way to clear things up - not even "clear enough."
>
> Either DISCUSS means what it implies (maybe we add some
> separate status for BLOCK), or we change the state name to an
> intentionally more ambiguous name (like HOLD, or PENDING).
>
>>
>> I strongly agree with John's suggestion that ADs should clearly
>> distinguish a comment where they really want discussion from
>> something that they view as a sticking point. One of the cleared
>> DISCUSSes on 2821bis starts thus: "This is a discuss discuss
>> question....". Is that clear enough?
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
