Joe,
> On Oct 29, 2025, at 3:13 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for your review, Jeff. I don’t exactly agree with your assessment > that the document will cause more boilerplate. See below. I understand and sympathize that others will have different opinions about my concerns. My concerns are generally motivated by two pieces of experience: 1. In the context of my day-job, the usual tyranny of check lists and what it does to document readability. Such things are always motivated by the desire to do better, and often required in the wake of some prior mistake. (Don't be the reason for a rule...) 2. Repeated experience with such issues during IESG review. Sometimes this doesn't manifest as insertion of boilerplate, but it does manifest as "why is this somewhat disconnected sentence here?" Usually to silence a bit of last call reviews from individuals not familiar with the corpus of base work the patch document is addressing. I don't expect the majority of reviewers for this bis to share the same concerns since they don't share the same experiences. I'm supportive of the general work being done. My contribution thus leans towards making sure we don't create unnecessary process frictions. > [JMC] I don’t recall the authors talking about the “patch” case in great > detail, though it was discussed after you raised it at 123. However, my take > on this is that it is not incumbent on a “patch” draft to define the entirety > of management and operations details for a whole protocol if such definition > doesn’t already exist. My (our?) hope is that this draft will cause areas > and WGs to reflect on the need to fill such gaps if there is one in the base. I'd strongly consider the authors do targeted deployment testing of the draft's criteria vs. patch documents. I'll happily volunteer a few IDR documents offline. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
