Joe, > Broken, agreed.
Yep. > Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably: > > 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. > > The DISCUSS isn't there to make documents "better" - that's for COMMENTs. A > DISCUSS there to catch a set of problems and to *block* the document's > progress until that problem is resolved. Yes, but note that there are multiple aspects of "unclear". You cite above the motivation aspect. There's also a DISCUSS criteria for other forms of unclear, e.g., if I can't figure out what I should do in the implementation, it would be an issue. The criteria document confirms: "The specification is impossible to implement due to technical or clarity issues." > Sure, but note that there is a specific NON-DISCUSS criteria on this point: > > Disagreement with informed WG decisions that do not exhibit problems outlined > in Section 3.1 (DISCUSS Criteria). In other words, disagreement in > preferences among technically sound approaches. > > Finding technical mistakes is good, but imposing the IESG's preferred > technical solution over the WG's preference is inappropriate, but happens. If you are hit with a Discusss that is about preferring another technical solution, you should push back. Jari
