There appear to be two questions under discussion.
The first question is the line in my note as document shepherd to Aaron.
My wording could of been better. All comments received were given
appropriate consideration. All comments from the IRSG, whose review
period it was, were resolved sufficiently. that is what is required.
In particular, the IESG review referred to is not a content review at
all. It is a narrow review for certain specific items. (The procedure
is described in RFC 5742.)
The question of the relationship between the document content and the
preceding RRG discussion was itself discussed extensively on this list
before the initial notice to the IRSG. The document is very careful to
be clear about what is a summary of work, and what the basis of the
recommendation is. While there was some disagreement, Tony followed
procedures on determining suitability for publication of the document.
The initial notice to the IRSG explicitly indicated that the
recommendations were the chair's recommendations, not the research groups.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern, acting as document shepher
On 10/2/2010 7:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Joel Halpern<[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14
I think the document should be renamed "RRG Report" instead of
recommendation and section 17 should be simply be cut after the second
sentence ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best
approach.")
Tony: I realize you wanted to reach a well supported recommendation,
but you didn't. Paul Hoffman hit it on the head. You, "do a disservice
to the obviously large amount of work in the RG that went into this
document" by forcing the inclusion of a recommendation that we, as a
group, did not achieve.
Lixia: I would respectfully and very delicately suggest that the
_appearance_ of impropriety involved in recommending your own proposal
when, "the group did not reach rough consensus," could come back to
haunt you irrespective of the technical merits of your ideas.
Folks are going to talk about this document, on mailing lists, in
hallways and at bars. What would you like them to say?
In my ever so humble opinion,
Bill Herrin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
