On 6/2/2015 1:48 PM, John Leslie wrote: ... > I truly worry that expecting all that will be too severe a limit > on available candidates.
We should list the set of things we expect expertise in AND clearly indicate that we're looking for good overlap but not necessarily complete coverage. And "familiarity with" is enough; "deep knowledge" isn't needed per se. ... >> Finally, the last paragraph should compress down the congestion/flow >> control issues to one item (not 4) and should also specifically list MTU >> interactions and ICMP interactions. > > Sounds like we're going to disagree there. > > I see nothing wrong with four items within "congestion/flow-control". > But I'm ready to agree that "MTU interactions" is probably worth adding. > I honestly don't know whether it's good to expect expertise in "ICMP > interactions". That is a moving target: granted, we've ignored it more > often than we should; but I believe implementers react to these problems > during testing -- thus I wouldn't require ADs to field such issues. I could say the same thing about congestion control, and IMO it'd be equally absurd ;-) > Perhaps I'm more sensitive than I need to be about limiting the field > of candidates. But I've watched NomComs struggle for too long to quietly > agree to increasing the requiriments for Transport ADs. And I've watched > the chaos which ensues when they fail to find a nominee to recommend. I think that can be addressed as noted above. The list isn't the issue; it's the expectation of how much and how deeply it is known. Joe
