On 1/6/21 2:42 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Joke aside - my experience with IETF feedback is very different. It is hard work and you cannot wait for a random outsider to provide high-quality feedback. You (as document authors, working group members, working group chair) have to reach out to other communities (like researchers, implementers, the deployment community, etc.). You have to give presentations at conferences and workshops. You have to organize interoperability events. Etc. You have to convince others that the work you are doing is worthwhile their time.
I certainly agree that we can't just wait for random outsiders to review
things, and I appreciate the hard work it takes to get wide review.
But I've also seen high-quality and useful feedback from the extended
IETF community, and I don't think we should be adopting practices that
discourage that.
PS: FWIW I agree with you that late reviews are less than ideal for the document authors and for the respective working group. However, doing an early review is pain for reviewers when documents are still inconsistent.
Some of the early feedback I would not call "review" but something
closer "feed forward". WGs and document authors need to understand
the constraints of the space they are designing for, and input from
outside the WG core can be very valuable for this and should be encouraged.
Keith
