Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. If a particular AD doesn't have cycles to monitor every last call - and, as the AD has to review the doc and to a technical review, anyway, I'm not sure monitoring last call discussions would consume many more cycles than the current process - the AD could call on an expert or a directorate to participate in the open process. But, I'm indulging in generating solutions rather than identifying problems. I guess the problem I see is separating technical analysis from process management... - Ralph On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 02:01 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > >> I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back > >> on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their > >> judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information > >> supplied by others. > > > > I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically > > astute than the rest of us. > > 1. ADs usually _are_ more technically astute than the average IETF > participant (perhaps not you, but the average participant), because ADs > are selected for their expertise while IETF participants are > self-selecting. (Maybe some are selected by their employers, but I > don't think it's generally the practice of most employers to send their > best technical people to standards committees. My impression is that > many employers - not all by any means - would rather send people who > are expendable, and/or who will represent the company's official > position rather than their own best judgment.) > > 2. ADs also tend to have a broader perspective than the average IETF > participant, because ADs are exposed to everything that IETF does while > most participants' activity is confined to a narrow topic area. That's > not to say that a broad perspective is inherently less valuable than a > narrow perspective - they're both valuable, but for different reasons. > > But both of those are less relevant than the fact that it's IESG's > _job_ to make judgments about the quality of specifications and > protocols, and that this is a _necessary_ job. WGs are too frequently > insular and too frequently want to make unacceptable compromises - > somebody has to serve as a check against that. Somebody has to resolve > conflicts between competing concerns. Somebody has to make sure that > the specifications are complete. etc. > > > I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their > > technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG > > or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed > > openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical > > input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be > > held accountable. > > I have mixed feelings about this. I believe that often it is the case > that ADs providing technical input through the WG mailing list, and > participating in discussions on that list, is the most effective way to > resolve the differences. On the other hand, mailing lists that are > focused on a narrow topic are not good places for resolution of issues > that involve concerns outside the WG's scope - the WG tends to dismiss > those concerns out-of-hand even though they are valid. Also it is > impractical for every AD to participate in lengthy discussions with > every WG whose work is commented on - where each message to a WG from > an AD could elicit several responses, each expecting a response from > the AD who is reviewing dozens of documents every week. > > I can imagine a process that encourages the responsible AD and document > author (and/or chair) to go over the DISCUSS comments together and to > identify those which are noncontroversial and those which need further > discussion. The proposed resolution of the noncontroversial issues and > the list of controversial issues should certainly be presented to the > WG, and perhaps the WG should be encouraged to identify potential > compromises on the controversial issues. If the WG comes up with > reasonable compromises, that's great. But in general I don't think we > can afford to insist that such issues be resolved on the WG mailing > list in an discussion with the ADs. Just like a design team within a > WG might need to work out compromises within itself (to be ratified by > the larger group), so might the chair, authors, and ADs need to work > out compromises at that level. > > I don't think that it's feasible to insist that all issues raised by > ADs be raised in Last Call, because ADs also have to make judgments > about the importance and validity of Last Call comments, and they may > even have to reconcile differences between conflicting Last Call > comments. What this means is that there are always going to be some > issues raised after Last Call - and it's not clear that having two > separate AD review phases in the process would an improvement (in my > experience, the more often I read a document, the harder it became to > notice the effects of changes to that document). But of course I do > favor ADs (and others) bringing issues to a WG's attention as early as > possible. Ideally those issues should be raised long before Last Call > time, and long before the WG thinks the design is frozen. > > Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf