Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:48:27 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:26 PM -0400 Dave CROCKER 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> In the SMTP case there where never any communication with me
>> in the loop  about my discuss position until after the appeal
>> has been submitted.  From the point we actually had any
>>  discussion it didn't take that long.  But clearly a
>> communication problem that involved several parties.
>
> This suggests a process failure of some sort.  Either in the
> particulars of this case or in the basic way a Discuss is
> developed, pursued and resolved.  My impression is the latter.

Addressing this one issue only, it was the result of a 
misunderstanding about the meaning and interpretation of a 
Discuss -- whether it was intended as a temporary placeholder, 
was intended for internal discussion within IESG, required an 
immediate response from the author or others, was covered by a 
discussion with other IESG members about the same topic, etc. 
In my personal opinion, it would be a much better use of IESG 
and community time to clarify and differentiate the various 
meanings of "Discuss" and how the community is expected to 
respond to each type, that it is to try to fine-tune examples. 
But apparently the IESG does not agree -- I hope not because, 
for some incomprehensible-to-me reason, they prefer the 
obscurity.

> This makes it worth considering how things could be changed to
> make concerns, such as you had, easier and less painful to
> resolve.

Yep

     john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:57:00 +0200

John C Klensin skrev:

> But apparently the 
> IESG does not agree -- I hope not because, for some 
> incomprehensible-to-me reason, they prefer the obscurity.
> 

The IESG is currently spending a substantial amount of time discussing 
this issue. I hope the community will see some of the fruits of this 
discussion in the near future.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:16:30 -0400

--On Wednesday, 24 September, 2008 09:57 +0200 Magnus Westerlund
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG is currently spending a substantial amount of time
> discussing this issue. I hope the community will see some of
> the fruits of this discussion in the near future.

I look forward to it and won't expect more comments until the
IESG is ready.

But I hope that the issue the IESG is discussing is focused on
the granularity and appropriateness of these types of rules
because, from my point of view, "how much time does it take to
get it right and how else could that time be spent" are the key
questions, not the issue about what names/identifiers should be
used in examples.. especially in normal, new document, cases.

   john

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:01:54 -0400

> used in examples.. especially in normal, new document, cases.

+10

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf