> > 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. Again, this will be true no matter who does the review. > 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. That sounds like an appeals process to me. It's not at all clear to me that we can afford the resources to give the privilege of appeal to mere individuals. > Also it seems that not specifying how long review should take allows to > delay document indefinitely That's a bit like saying that an SMTP server should not be able to delay mail indefinitely no matter how much SPAM it gets. There are a near-infinite number of simians with keyboards, while IETF review resources are (and always will be) finite and precious. So no matter who does the review for individual submissions, I think that it's perfectly reasonable for that reviewer to be able to say "Sorry, we receive too many invididual submissions to review them all, and yours doesn't pass the smell test. You may wish to seek publication through other channels". This is no different than any other publisher. IETF is not a vanity press. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf