On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 12:19 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > Let me also restate for clarity: > > > 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). > > There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control. Why is that? If an AD has a compelling reason that a specification needs work, the AD should be able to make a convincing argument to the IETF as a whole. Best way to do that is in an open conversation during the IETF last call. > > 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. > > I agree that input should be provided as early as possible. But some > kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call, Such as? > and limiting IESG input > to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower > than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just > one), I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF last call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree that they are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to review and comment on the draft. My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay between the IETF last call and the IESG review. > while lowering publication quality (by preventing IESG from > objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps > discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related > to issues raised in Last Call). > > Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf