On standards review panel and division of work

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

Margaret's commentary on the standards review panel got me thinking of the same thing I had considered potentially problematic.

If I understood her concern correctly, the point was that in the standards review panel, the IESG would basically still continue reviewing the documents (at least to some degree) -- there seems to be an expectation that they should form an opinion on them (to be attached to the review request to be sent to the review panel).

When I read the document, my assumption was that the IESG could reduce the amount of review significantly, and possibly even remove it completely. There is indeed a danger that the present model could continue (compare also to the previous RFC-editor submission review, which wasn't supposed to be all that thorough in the first place!).

I do not think this is a show-stopper though; as many details in the proposal, things like these can be modified. In this case, I believe the problem can be easily addressed by giving the ADs the power to initiate the review requests to the review panel -- and encouraging them to do so.

This would have several benefits:
 * if the expectation would be that drafts would be brought before
   the full IESG only in exceptional cases, the load and duplication
   of review would not increase significantly.

 * if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the IESG
   members to ensure the drafts have been sufficiently cross-area
   reviewed before requesting advancement (this is obviously also
   chairs' responsibility) -- ensuring earlier review.

 * again, if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the
   IESG members who have a personal interest to participate during the
   IETF last call (or even earlier) if they want to perform personal
   review.

 * it would remove the full IESG review and place it to the different
   equivalent body, the review body.

I don't see any disadvantages, except that if there hasn't been sufficient cross-area review before requesting the review panel to review, they might have to shuttle the documents back and forth more often. This approach might also call for IETF-wide vetting of also WG-produces informational/experimental documents, if they would be reviewed by fewer people, but if this would be needed, it could be easily added later on and isn't worth considering at this point.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]