Re: Document Blocking (Was: I-D

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Randy,

At 09:00 PM 6/12/2003 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> first, i was not aware that one could ballot COMMENT.
From Harald's response, it looks like COMMENT means any
issues that you raise on the IESG mailing list that don't
result in a DISCUSS.  I'm still not sure that the WG
ever sees these comments, though.

I actually think that it is possible that the IESG could
find non-blocking issues with the document that the WG
might choose to change before publication...  In many
cases, I expect that the WG might agree with the comments,
and decide to make changes based on them, if they were
aware of them.

In this particular case, for instance, it is possible
that the WG would agree that mentioning 64-bit IIDs
here is contentious and unnecessary, and I think that
we should raise that issue with the group...  just
like we would if your ops-dir reviewer had raised this
as a IETF last-call issue.  I'm just not sure that it
should be considered a blocking problem with the
document, though.

> but i am
> sure the problem-statement people can invent it before the iesg
> telechat in three hours. :-)
...and find three unqualified volunteers to modify the
I-D tracker to handle it, I'm sure.  Better yet, let's
replace the I-D tracker with a relational database, so
that a web browser isn't needed to access it!  :-)

> but in this case, the reality is that, as i acually work with a
> review team, i am awaiting a reply from it.  as it was only this
> morning that we received from the wg a proposed fix to the issue i
> raised back on 14 april, i am not inclined to severe panic.
I hope that no one could be inclined to panic about this
particular draft.  Eventually, we do need to publish something
to make the TLA/NLA rules historic, but there isn't much
urgency...

> thomas, this is your draft.  am i missing something here?
Thomas is currently on a two week vacation, returning
Friday the 13th.

Margaret