> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spencer> - It is probably helpful to include a reference to a
Spencer> - One point I took away from the recent chat about IANA
Spencer> registration on this list is that a substantial portion
Spencer> of the community t
> My biggest concern here is not the IESG itself, it's the folk who
> presume to speak on its behalf.
This is a valid concern, and one that has made me cringe multiple
times. I've too often heard of reports where someone says "but the
IESG will never accept this", or "that's not what AD foo says",
Dear Scott (Brim),
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions
is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases,
pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Yeah, I agree completely with the sentiment. I just wish there was a
tigh
As most RFC authors know, when an IESG member identifies a problem
in
a draft under IESG review, he or she casts a DISCUSS ballot, with
accompanying text, and the DISCUSS has to be cleared before the
document can advance.
draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt talks about this. Even within the
IESG,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> In the end a lot of this comes down to judgement calls, and these
> guidelines help to set expectations for those calls. If someone
> sends in a DISCUSS and gets back "Really?" from a couple of other ADs,
> the judgement may rapidly swing the other way. I'd say the IESG
> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed
> solutions is very good for the future of the Internet, and in
> those cases, pushing for Foo even when Bar is just as good is
> quite legitimate.
I have no argument at all when the IESG
egards, peterf
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott W Brim
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 08:56
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
> >
, 2005 9:42 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?
>
>
> Phill,
>
> Just picking out the nub of your message:
>
> > There is however one area that should be made very explicit
> as a non
> > issue for D
Yakov,
Ultimately the marketplace will decide, but when a WG provides
multiple solutions to the same problem it has the potential to
confuse the marketplace, retard adoption of any solution, interfere
with interoperability, etc.
Standards ought to avoid confusion, not contribute to it.
Stev
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
> > There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
> > very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
> > for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
>
> Limiting the
Scott W Brim wrote:
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Sure, but I think some of these things ("good", "legitimate")
are unknowable
Scott,
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > Phill,
> >
> > Just picking out the nub of your message:
> >
> > >There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
> > >issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> Phill,
>
> Just picking out the nub of your message:
>
> >There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
> >issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
> >
> >I have been con
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have been concerned on a number of occasions where it has appeared
that in order to get a specification a
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott> I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott> the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott> blocking actions by ADs
Sam asks:
> how about just waiting to see if we have a problem before designing
> new process?
we have running code that there have been problems in the past
maybe this new process will help avoid some of them & maybe the IESG will
be more ready to push back on ADs that do not follow these much
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott> I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott> the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott> blocking actions by ADs
Scott> but
> draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt talks about this. Even
> within the IESG, we still have one or two points to resolve,
> but we wanted to get this out before the cutoff date. This
> isn't in any way intended to change any of the principles of
> the standards process, but we'd welcome commun
At 11:22 08/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As most RFC authors know, when an IESG member identifies a problem in
a draft under IESG review, he or she casts a DISCUSS ballot, with
accompanying text, and the DISCUSS has to be cleared before the
document can advance.
draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-
re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by the IESG it
should reduce the number of what appears to be blocking actions
by ADs
but I did not see any enforcement mechanism - i.e. if an AD enters a
DISCUSS over a section 3.2 reason how does the
20 matches
Mail list logo
