WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small proposal toexp and text in sections 2.2 and 2.3)

[Spencer Dawkins]

I'm probably not being entirely clear in my postings. Avri may have
said it better.

I happen to agree that the problem Alistair raises is a real problem,
and should be fixed. The question is, is it worth discussing the text,
updating the document, and issuing another WG last call? I don't think
that it is, because

- the text cannot include a solution (out of scope for the document
and for the WG), so nothing will change immediately as a result of
adding the new problem, and

- a problem doesn't have to be documented in this draft in order to be
fixed!

We're talking about the Problem Statement draft as if it was a work
plan for solutions. It's not. It's an attempt to get clarity on a few
serious problems. Nobody is going to oppose a smart process
improvement because the problem wasn't named in the Problem Statement
draft.

So, my suggestion is,

- ship the document,

- discuss the problem on this list, if anyone has feedback - nobody
has said the problem doesn't exist, so I wouldn't expect too much
feedback here - , and

- propose a solution - and I would suggest a brief ID as the format
for the proposal, and solutions at alvestrand.no as the venue for
discussing the proposal.

IMH,B,BSCO :-} But we really can start proposing solutions. We really
don't have to serialize the first fix behind the final problem
identification, but if we have to have a perfect Problem Statement
before we ship it, we're going to.

Spencer

> On torsdag, sep 18, 2003, at 18:23 Asia/Seoul,
> Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com wrote:
>
> > Once again.  Why not add this small change proposal?
> >
>
> I think the only problem with including it is determining whether
there
> is WG consensus for including it.  Documents can, of course, be
changed
> as a result of Last Call comments, but only when there is consensus
> from the WG to do so.  That is indeed what we are trying to
determine
> at this point.
>
> Thanks
>
> a.
>