RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on problem statement document

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I am reading/reviewing it right now.
What is the intended status? Informational? BCP?

Thomas, it would be good if we can see any MAJOR CONCERNS
you may have asap. I am not planning to nitpick this doc,
but I will chgeck if I see any SERIOUS or MAJOR issues.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 16 september 2003 14:53
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on problem statement document 
> 
> 
> 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
>