Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I'm pretty much not in consensus in DNSOP right now, and I take that
in good part because working consensus is a pretty high value
proposition.

I think if I was 'outside the church' on a matter of technical merit
I'd feel more like standing up and shouting about it. But, mostly,
that WG is talking politics when I chose to disagree (I hate to
mis-characterize it, but thats what I see the ALT and related
discussion as: it has next to no technical merit to me, its a politics
conversation)

People in the WG talk to me outside of the list, and likewise. I'm ok
with that, because in the end, consensus is a high value thing. When
an author says to me "Its AUTH48 and we're in IESG process, if you
make me re-do this it has to go back into the WG to get signed off, so
tell me now: is this real, or just opinion" I take that on board.

So I draw a personal distinction between matters of substance, and
matters of opinion, in how I chose to flag dissent. and I would
encourage others to do the same: try and approach the question from
the perspective of:

  "is this materially relating to bits on the wire, and how protocol
endpoints work"

distinct from

  "is this something about a human process, I just don't agree with"

If you're talking about UTF-8 labels and encoded ASN.1 strings, its
case 1. If you're talking which of IAB and ICANN have primacy
determining what labels exist, you're case 2.

-G

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> There is a procedure (that I thought was pretty widely known) that allows
> chairs to request early cross-are review when they think it is helpful.  I
> know that several of the review teams support this.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> On 2/14/17 6:56 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>
>> At 12:18 PM +1300 2/15/17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>>  2. As a Gen-ART reviewer I've often seen drafts at IETF LC that
>>>  really *need* a general, in-depth review.
>>
>>
>> As a document author, I appreciate the area reviews done by GEN, SEC,
>> etc.  However, I think they would be just as useful and perhaps more
>> timely if done during WGLC (assuming the WG does a WGLC).
>>
>