Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on problem statement document

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

I mentioned this briefly on the fab call.

I have substantative comments on this document. But I also read the
mailing list, and the message that is being sent there very loud and
clear is "ship this now, it's good enough, and if we iterate on it any
more, it just proves how broken this WG is."

This is a real problem in a lot of WGs. Bottom line: WGs want input
early while they are still interested. At the end game, they often
really do not want it. They just want to ship. This is one of the core
reasons IETF LCs don't work anymore (and why the IESG reviews are so
detested at times). Who wants to raise substantive comments on a
document when they get no support from the WG, and indeed, outright
hostility?

PS, same thing happened with my comments on the IPR documents. I do
not feel like I got support for my review (in fact, I got some very
negative private mail). And as it stands right now, there is still one
substantative issue open on one document that I don't feel like the WG
has even acknowledged is (or is not) an issue that needs fixing. My
current thinking it to just abstain on these documents when they come
to the IESG. :-(

Note: I don't intend to single out either WG as particularly
broken. But they do provide recent examples of a "core problem" that
permeates the IETF these days.

Thomas