okay, this is getting way too long, and starting to get repetitive and even personal, so I'm going to summarize: 1. A review structure that works for conferences doesn't necessarily work for IETF. Conferences and IETF have different goals. IETF tries to do engineering and produce technical consensus behind particular solutions. Conferences try to stimulate thought and discussion. IETF tries to get closure; while in a conference, some amount of controversy is even desirable. Conference paper reviews are just trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high; IETF reviews are trying to see if the design is complete, appropriate design choices were made, and if the various protocols can peacefully coexist in the network. Conferences and IETF also draw from different constituencies, and IETFers may have more constraints on their time than those who attend conferences and submit papers to conferences. 2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem by changing how IESG works. 3. I don't think we can make IESG significantly larger, I don't think we can dispense with final document review and keep document quality up, and I don't think that additional reviewers can signficantly relieve IESG of the need to do final review. I do think that additional reviewers could be very valuable in giving WGs feedback from early drafts, keeping them on the right track, and keeping IESG informed about the status of the WGs. I also think that a document that has enjoyed such review and feedback throughout its life cycle will be much easier for IESG to review, and that (without any changes to IESG's organization or process) it will be harder for IESG to reject such documents without sound technical justification. 4. Broad based (not just "cross-area") review is essential and IETF doesn't have adequate structures to do this at present. WGs generally need to have short lifetimes and to stay focused on deliverables, while issues of conflict between concerns exist for years after a WG has finished. 5. These days, most IETFers are narrowly focused. What this means is that we have to actively cultivate a broad view among people entrusted to do broad review. IESG turns out to (accidentally) be a mechanism for cultivating broad views, but it's not the only possible mechanism for doing so. I suspect we would agree that the ADs alone aren't sufficient. But I think the primary benefit of additional reviewers is in early review rather than late review - I think we want the early review both to give timely feedback and correction to WGs and to give the ADs confidence that the WGs have stayed on track and done their homework, thus making the late reviews easier. --- and one specific response to something you wrote: > We don't believe in kings, and IMO, the IESG have too much king-like > power in the current structure. Start giving IESG real rough consensus (rather than consensus by exclusion and/or exhaustion) and real running code (or even better, convincing analysis that the protocol will work well in the wild), and they won't feel the need to rule by edict. IESG appears to rule by edict because WGs demand that IESG provide them with very concrete feedback. Simply saying "you failed to provide security" or "you failed to address the concerns of this other group that you'll harm their interoperability" doesn't work - either the WG will balk or they'll sit on the document for months not being willing to fix the problems. So ADs try to come up with good technical solutions in order to get closure. If the WG likes the solution all is well; if they don't like the solution they complain about ADs who act like kings. But mostly, WGs get what they deserve. ADs like nothing better than to be presented with well-written, focused documents from groups that have obviously done their background work and given it appropriate consideration in their designs. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf