Hi Keith, > 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. >From your experience, what are these reviews typically based on? Are they based on drafts or something else? If I recall great feedback I received "recently" then the review from Bob Briscoe on the SUIT architecture comes to mind (which happened late in the process based on the draft) and feedback from implementers (which was, of course, also based indirectly on a draft version). > 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. This is also an interesting case because it is input (for feed forward, as you call it) that is substantially different from the feedback later in the life of a specification (or set of specifications). In my experience this type of input is given during BOFs, in informal discussions, etc. and is often extremely time consuming for the persons providing the input. What is your experience there? I am wondering whether the discussion about feedback / input isn't largely orthogonal from the question what tools (email, Github, Slack, etc.) are being used. Providing input early in the life of a specification has always been a challenge - even before Github was around. Ciao Hannes IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
