Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
>> presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
>>
>
>
> Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to
> emphasize:
>
>    The concern I expressed had nothing at all to do with this.
>
> What prompted my note that in turn prompted Pete's was a form of
> counter-productive LC behavior that I consider to be abusive and since it
> was from a highly experienced participant, inexcusable.
>
> Serious questions and suggestions from serious reviewers/critics are
> /essential/ to IETF quality assurance and I have as little patience for the
> sneering you describe as anyone else.


I think you were out of line because the type of issues being raised are
precisely the type of issues that are appropriate to raise in IETF last
call, indeed are the reason for having an IETF wide last call in the first
place.

If I see a WG railroading a scheme that I think is botched architecturally
then of course IETF LC is the place to raise it. Adding in a requirement,
sure.

In this case the issues being raised are a repeat of the arguments made
from ten years ago and I don't have much sympathy for them given the way
the folk raising them behaved then and in particular their total lack of
concern for the deployment issues raised by the group.

But I don't criticize them on the process question, IETF LC is exactly the
place to raise this issue. It is one area kibitzing on the work of another.
That is an IETF layer issue for sure.




-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/