On 2007-01-04 07:56, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 1/3/07, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
It's always open to the WG to propose a resolution of the DISCUSS
that is radically different from what the discussing AD suggests,
too.
Yes, any group is free to try anything in the IETF process, but that's
not expedient for a WG that needs a document published.
I need to do some textual analysis on that sentence ;-)
"a WG that needs a document published"
This choice of words implies that you're thinking of a WG as
an autonomous body with its own objectives. But that isn't the
way I look at any IETF WG. An IETF WG is a component of the IETF,
and the IETF's first goal is "to make the Internet work better"
(RFC 3935). Its way of doing this is to publish "documents that
influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet
in such a way as to make the Internet work better" (RFC 3935 again).
So, a WG "needing" a document published has to achieve this
within the goal of making "the Internet work better." I see
most of the DISCUSS criteria quite explicitly oriented towards
meeting this goal. Also this is where the whole discussion
of IETF-wide review outside the WG fits in.
Let's face
it--DISCUSS is a fairly Orwellian euphemism.
Not if you accept that IETF WGs should operate to meet
the IETF's mission. But it does require that both the AD issuing
the DISCUSS, and the protagonists of the document, are willing
to actually discuss.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
