On 1/22/2012 10:01 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I hope (indeed *want*) serious technical pushback to the IESG from WG members and chairs when any AD (myself included) makes a technical claim that might be wrong.
I'll suggest that "pushback", per se, is the tactical point. The strategic point is the dual obligation for:
1) the AD to be (more?) clear about their underlying concerns and not just assert the problem or the solution they think will resolve it, as well as the requirement that they engage in a /direct/ dialogue with the working group, and
2) the working group to be (more?) clear about its underlying goals and requirements, as well as engaging in real and constructive dialogue with the AD(s) toward a useful resolution, rather than merely one that pacifies the ADs.
I have more than my share of just getting pissed off at ADs who lodge vague and even inappropriate Discusses and can attest that while pushing back is fine, indulging in being pissed off is never helpful, even when they warrant the reaction. (That's meant merely to mark an extreme, not claim it applied here.)
Unfortunately, my review of the current wg's mailing list record shows quite a bit less of #1 than there should be, IMO, in spite of Pete's active, follow-on participation. (And I note that the Discuss is not yet cleared...)
Stephen has not engaged directly. Now it well might be that Pete has been an adequate surrogate, but forgive me, it is Stephen who holds the Discuss.
It really is essential that a wg not be forced to guess what will satisfy ADs who hold Discusses.
As a matter of due diligence, I'll also ask folks whether they believe the modifications to the specification retain its previous level of utility and pedagogy as a specification, for strangers out there in implementation land who lack the background from participating in the working group? I ask this because sometimes handling the one point raised by a Discuss alters the answer for other aspects of the spec...
So, technical pushing back on this was good and I want more of that. The only thing that I was concerned about was your statement that this was an "overstepping its authority" situation.
If one reviews Stephen's Discuss, one sees an engineer asserting the details of an alternative solution, with what is really none of the underlying concepts or issues that might justify it. However the concerns in the underlying stuff are the real substance.
Perhaps my reading comprehension is inadequate here, but I simply don't see the material a working group ought to be given, to permit serious dialogue.
Forgive me, but that really /is/ overstepping (or understepping) the role of the IESG at this stage, IMO, even if the suggestion is the right one.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
