ask a blocking question and
get a note saying that the new draft addresses your discuss. I have
to figure out what changed and then try to imply an answer to my
question. I'd much rather have a dialogue.
Spencer I would suggest one paragraph that says something like
Spencer when we say
would suggest one paragraph that says something like when we say
discuss, we mean this in the common English sense, even if we spell
it in all caps, and we really do want a dialog, not random changes to
a specification in the hopes of placating us and getting the DISCUSS
removed.
This would
Dear Scott (Brim),
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions
is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases,
pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Yeah, I agree completely with the sentiment. I just wish there was a
My biggest concern here is not the IESG itself, it's the folk who
presume to speak on its behalf.
This is a valid concern, and one that has made me cringe multiple
times. I've too often heard of reports where someone says but the
IESG will never accept this, or that's not what AD foo says, etc.
Sam Hartman wrote:
Scott == Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott blocking actions by ADs
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have been concerned on a number of occasions where it has appeared
that in order to get a specification
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have been concerned on a
Scott,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have
Scott W Brim wrote:
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Sure, but I think some of these things (good, legitimate)
are unknowable.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Limiting the number
Yakov,
Ultimately the marketplace will decide, but when a WG provides
multiple solutions to the same problem it has the potential to
confuse the marketplace, retard adoption of any solution, interfere
with interoperability, etc.
Standards ought to avoid confusion, not contribute to it.
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit
as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have been
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott W Brim
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 08:56
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
There are occasions when limiting the number
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed
solutions is very good for the future of the Internet, and in
those cases, pushing for Foo even when Bar is just as good is
quite legitimate.
I have no argument at all when the IESG
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In the end a lot of this comes down to judgement calls, and these
guidelines help to set expectations for those calls. If someone
sends in a DISCUSS and gets back Really? from a couple of other ADs,
the judgement may rapidly swing the other way. I'd say the IESG is
Scott == Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott blocking actions by ADs
Scott but I did not see
Sam asks:
how about just waiting to see if we have a problem before designing
new process?
we have running code that there have been problems in the past
maybe this new process will help avoid some of them maybe the IESG will
be more ready to push back on ADs that do not follow these much
.txt
Pages : 10
Date: 2005-7-7
This document describes the role of the 'DISCUSS' position in the
IESG review process. It gives some guidance on when a DISCUSS should
and should not be issued. It also discusses procedures for DISCUSS
re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by the IESG it
should reduce the number of what appears to be blocking actions
by ADs
but I did not see any enforcement mechanism - i.e. if an AD enters a
DISCUSS over a section 3.2 reason how does the
: 10
Date: 2005-7-7
This document describes the role of the 'DISCUSS' position in the
IESG review process. It gives some guidance on when a DISCUSS should
and should not be issued. It also discusses procedures for DISCUSS
resolution.
A URL for this Internet
draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt talks about this. Even
within the IESG, we still have one or two points to resolve,
but we wanted to get this out before the cutoff date. This
isn't in any way intended to change any of the principles of
the standards process, but we'd welcome community
21 matches
Mail list logo
