Re: Compendium of "red flags"

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Perhaps the answer is that the id-nits document should become
an openly debated consensus document instead of an IESG
edict. (I don't mean to imply there is anything objectionable
in it today.)

   Brian

"Putzolu, David" wrote:
> 
> While I agree with Avri that it would be a way of
> defining architecture (or at least, some architectural
> principles),  I think such an effort would actually be
> a good thing to do.  The architectural ideas are already
> out there in people's heads and affecting the process
> today,  I'd rather they where out in the open and
> documented (or at least debated).
> 
> I like the nit document. It performs a valuable editorial
> function. Having an equivalent in a technical sense would
> be valuable.
> 
> I would think there would be area-specific technical nits
> as well as some IETF-wide technical nits.
> 
> -David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org]
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:14 AM
> > To: wgchairs@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Compendium of "red flags"
> >
> > It strikes me as yet another nit document.  And the relation
> > of red flags to sacred cows would be a problem.
> >
> > I fear that this document once created would be yet another
> > barrier to getting a document through the process.  I think
> > it would also be a back door way of defining an architecture.
> > I.e. this is what we don't do ...
> >
> > I personally would not be happy to see it.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > > It has occurred to me that it might be useful to have a document
> > > summarizing the most common technical problems encountered
> > in drafts that
> > > have passed WG last call.
> > >
> > > These are things that if present in a draft tend to be "red
> > flags" --
> > > items that are often of questionable technical merit, and
> > will tend to
> > > draw scrutiny.
> > >
> > > That doesn't mean that such items can never be included --
> > just that the
> > > WG should be prepared to make a persuasive argument for them.
> > >
> > > It might make sense to group the "red flags" by Area -- Transport,
> > > Security, Routing, etc. so that we can make sure to have
> > come up with a
> > > "well rounded" set of issues.
> > >
> > > Do people think that such a document would be valuable? How
> > many "red
> > > flags" might be reasonable to discuss in such a document? 10? 25?