Brian, > Do you think it's OK for the IESG to kick a draft right back to > the WG by saying > > "This is a mess and fundamentally wrong, but we don't have > time to tell you why, so you have to go find a reviewer." ? Yes, but... If an I-D is really bad, it is simply not possible to do anything approaching a reasonable review, and the IESG don't have the time or job-skills for this. However, they should be able to give some pointers even for an I-D they haven't looked at in detail. Things like: the use of English is very poor; the document needs complete restructuring; etc. And this comment needs to come with some helpful advice, such as: ask on the WG mailing list for someone to help edit the language; have a look at draft-xyz.txt and see if you can use that structure. In most cases, however, the I-D has come to the IESG after review by the 'responsible' AD. So why not boot it straight back to that AD (management lines should be up-and-down)? One last point. Sometimes a WG runs out of steam for a draft that is somewhat useful, but Informational. If the draft is readable but really needs a significant re-write then what? Either publish as it is or acknowledge that it will probably be discarded (but still return it to the WG just in case). - This point does not apply to Standards Track (IMHO): such drafts must be of good quality. Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf