Joe Touch wrote:
I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute the reviews and collect and interpret the results.
I would agree on one point. Document reviewers seem to me would help. Most of the initial feedback (at least for my '1' case) was editorial and not technical. The technical feedback came later.
So perhaps some kind of procedural reviewer would help the AD's from what might be repetitive and common feedback? When those are fixed, then the AD's read them for technical content. The AD's would not have to worry about reading a hundred or so pages more than needed.
Or were my initial submission issues rare?
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com -------------------------------|-----------------------------
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
begin:vcard fn:Doug Royer n:Royer;Doug org:INET-Consuiting.com adr:;;2756 N. GreenValley Pkwy #845;Henderson;NV;89014;U.S.A email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx title:CEO tel;work:208-612-4638 tel;fax:866-494-8574 tel;cell:208-520-4044 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://Royer.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf