> A full review should not be necessary. I wish that were true... > The only review should be of the changes made by the RFC editor. Perhaps the problem was that these were some excessive. The RFC editor often makes suggestions when text is unclear. In many cases these are great, in some cases these are wrong, but easily corrected (or rejected). The interesting cases are where the authors then need to find out what was actually meant. >> A significant issue was that it had >> spent a long time in the Q, and authors had swapped too much context out. >> > Ouch! Not just in the RFC editor queue (even though a MISSREF contributed a year in my example), also in the IESG processing, which can be very focused on narrow issues (and cause a lot of Brownian motion). Have a look at the graphics and history in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-resource-directory/ WGLC in 1H2019, IESG processing until early 2021, 1 year MISSREF… So it’s been three years since we did the final heavy lifting. Certainly swapped out by now. (And that was a very successful development, pretty cutting-edge when we started it in 2011, with other SDOs then picking up on the way much of the innovation in their own subset derivatives. It just took a lot of time to get the nooks and crannies right, with several author changes and job changes with the existing authors in that time.) Grüße, Carsten
