I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.
It seems to me that while many prefer IESG review some believe it may not always be fair and balanced. So if I can make a suggestion, it would be
good while defaulting to IESG review to also specify that submitter may challenge their review results and/or request an independent review from another source. So it would be good if we had some other organization or specified procedure on how RFC-Editor can request review from somebody other then IESG or some other then IETF-related body. Also it seems that not specifying how long review should take allows to delay document indefinitely, which is a form of rejection without officially saying so - so maximum time that review can take should be specified (say 6 months) and if results are not made available to author and RFC-Editor by end of this time, RFC-Editor default choice should be to publish as-is without any IESG note. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@xxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf