Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00.txt

Dave,

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> BEC> I think this version is a bit too lax. I think two explicit
> BEC> requirements should be placed on the draft in section 3.1
> 
>  That is because you want to make the label heavy-weight, witha high
>  barriers. This, of course, is exactly the philosophy that got us to
>  the current problem with PS.  (It worked so well with PS, let's
>  repeat it for WGS?)

No, I don't want to make it heavyweight, I want just enough checks and
balances to prevent egregious results.

> 
>  The goal for WGS is to have a label that is in the transient,
>  developmental spirit of working group I-Ds, rather than the
>  long-term, reputation-of-the-ietf orientation of standards track.

Indeed. That's why I agree that the consensus to publish a WGS
should be judged by the WG chairs.

> 
>  And, by the way, requiring cross-area review before assigning the
>  label is a good way to prevent using the label for coordinating the
>  process of _obtaining_ reviews (cross area or otherwise.)

And that's how it should be IMHO. But again, my suggestion is that
we give the WG Chairs the responsibility --- no process required
outside the WG.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar