Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

[Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

	Thanks for the clarification, very very useful.

Regards,
as

On 09/11/2012 11:42, Brian Dickson wrote:
> 
> 

> 
> 
> I'd like to note that in general, WG acceptance processes are a critical
> part of IETF processes.
> 
> In particular, the WG consensus on adoption, is the one critical place
> in preventing "gaming the system".
> 
> An adoption call should have three (or four) responses:
> 
> Ready for Adoption
> Needs more work BEFORE Adoption
> Should not (never) be adopted
> Abstain/don't care
> 
> The "needs more work" is the way that WG participants can hold
> authors/editors accountable for making requested changes.
> 
> If a draft is accepted in its current state, then any promises by the
> authors to make changes are much like promises by politicians during
> election campaigns - not worth the paper they are written on.
> 
> However, if the WG insists on changes BEFORE adoption, the reliance on
> promises goes away - which is a good thing.
> 
> Any discussion on the content of a draft, which is prompted by a WG
> adoption request, SHOULD be taken by chairs as "Needs more work BEFORE
> Adoption".
> 
> Since this does not seem to have been the case, please ask the WG to
> answer one of the four ways, explicitly.
> 
> BTW:
> 
> I believe that this draft should not be adopted in its current form (if
> ever).
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>