Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Sure, the IESG members occassionally look at issues in a working group
> draft, and that look varies depending on the person.

being on the iesg, let me assure you that each and every draft is read in
horrifying detail by most members of the iesg, whether it is in their
particular area or not.  it takes me at least a day a week and others are
more diligent and thorough than i.

and a significant proportion of drafts go back for wg changes after iesg
review.

> But the IETF has no mechanism through which the body as a whole reviews
> the working group output and accepts/rejects/modifies it.

it is referred to as ietf last call and is a mandatory part of the formal
process.  any person can, given issues of substance, stop a document in its
tracks.  and it is not uncommon that this happens.


> Soft policy, as we have here, requires that working groups be merely a
> source of formulations of ideas.  But unlike the IETF, we ought not to
> allow the working group to be effectively the final arbiter of those
> ideas, but rather require that those ideas be deeply reviewed and subject
> to full acceptance by larger bodies.

i do not disagree with this, except for your (in my opinion) mis-statement
of how the ietf works.

> In other words, we ought to reverse the presumptions from the IETF's
> presumption that WG output will result in a standard if not shown
> erroneous to a presumption the WG output is merely a topic for the GA
> consider, amend, or reject as the GA sees fit.

i am not sure i fully agree with this.  in this model, there would be no
need for wgs, merely random collections of drafters.  i suspect a reasonable
point lies in the middle, the wgs having a strong pen, but the nc and ga
having strong review.

> The IESG merely has the power to block, not the ability to rewrite.

history does not substantiate this, though it is usually done subtly.

> In our situation, we want the larger body (the general assembly) to be
> able to adopt in whole, revise to its heart's content, or reject in whole.

the meaning of 'we' here is not clear.  maybe you meant 'i'.  see my
previous suggestion that there may be a nice place in the middle.

>>> and are never settled absent implementation experience.
>> we wish it was like this.  it's more like implementation experience is
>> perceived as very desirable and is taken very seriously when available.
> Unlike the IETF, we don't have any means of having multiple
> "implementations" of a policy and seeing how it works in practice.

while i agree with this, i still disagree with your original assertion,
especially the word "never."

> As a result we have to talk a lot more and have multiple levels of
> acceptance of an idea.

as you imply, testing is expensive in the dnso context, and hence may not be
reversable.  so indeed, prudent review seems reasonable.  we only have to
decide what we mean by 'prudent'. :-)

randy