IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith On May 15, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> wrote: >>> The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough. >>> At the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked because they >>> provide capabilities beyond what seems necessary to acquit their >>> responsibilities. >> >> I strongly disagree with what the NON-DISCUSS criteria say. DISCUSS isn't >> just for blocking documents. And document quality is as important (in the >> sense that poor document quality can lead to as many interoperability or >> other problems) as technical correctness. > > The interpretation of this particular NON-DISCUSS criterion that Joe has > given is simply wrong. The key word to pay attention to to see the error is > "motivation." The point of this criterion is to eliminate a very specific > sort of stall that has been known to happen in the past: the stall where the > AD doesn't understand why the document is being put forward at all, and > therefore blocks the document until the authors explain the motivation behind > the document to the satisfaction of the AD who is holding the DISCUSS. > > This is a real issue that has created real problems in the past, and that is > why it is in the NON-DISCUSS criteria. But this criterion _does not_ mean > that a criticism that the document itself is unclear is not a valid reason to > hold a DISCUSS on it. In fact, it's an excellent reason to hold a DISCUSS > on it. A lack of clarity in a document can result in it being implemented > incorrectly, or in the case of a BCP, interpreted incorrectly. Or in > extreme cases, not read at all. This is a bad outcome, worth spending time > on, even if the authors would rather be quit of it. >
