General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

Keith Moore moore at cs.utk.edu
Mon Mar 3 10:07:38 CET 2003


> > in my experience, some of the need for AD feedback is precisely that
> > - perhaps due to unclear charters and unclear policies, perhaps
> > because policies, even when clearly stated, are scattered across
> > various RFCs, web pages, etc.
> >
> > there's also sometimes a lack of familiarity with the processes and
> > rules, both by chairs and by WG members.
>
> Right, but there would presumably be less of that with more
> clearly stated and/or easier to understand and policies.

not sure if we're talking about the same thing; I was talking about
things like RFC 2026 here as opposed to "what will IESG accept as
adequate authentication for this protocol?". 

RFC 2026 has always seemed fairly clear to me, but perhaps not to
everyone. 

> > then again, sometimes WGs are just stubborn.  chairs can not always
> > be trusted to stay within their charters and follow the rules, and
> > it's not always easy to replace them.
>
> In my experience all of these things are equally true in the business
> environment.

no doubt.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list