> > But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.) > > Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and > timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to > have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good > Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to > get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed? >From the ICAR review team page at http://www.machshav.com/~icar/reviews/people/ one can observe that only two review requests were ever submitted, and just one of these (a request submitted by me) resulted in a review (by Bernard). The other requested review, actually on Dave Crocker's list, is still pending. So, it seems like WG chairs were not very interested in getting help with early reviews, but I would not say this is necessarily a failure without giving it more time. It takes time to change mindsets, in the beginning you must be regularly reminded about the availability of the early cross-area review team. Not all documents would naturally benefit much from "WG external" early reviews, and especially not every revision of a draft. The review I got from Bernard was very useful, and I would be happy to make use of this resource pool again, for some documents at certain stages in the document development process. Rgds, /L-E, ROHC WG chair _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf