Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

> Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that
> are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion
> when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward
> points.
>
> This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide
> about, as well as consolidating issues when more than one AD
> (or other reviewer) finds the same thing.
What Brian is saying here is that there is a fair amount
of noise in some of these cases. A fairly typical situation
is that an AD raises a concern by placing a Discuss
but then in the telechat we talk about whether under
the circumstances that is really an issue. Quite often
we end up clearing the Discuss. In any case, it could
be premature to start a thread in the WG mailing list
on "this protocol must do X" before we are sure that
we actually want to demand that.

A good shepherd manages this and takes the
discussion to the WG when its ready. But in case
they forget and/or to assist them, I wouldn't mind
automatic posting of the IESG review results a
a day or two after the telechat to the WG list.

Jari

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