Steve Bellovin wrote:
>
Dave, a lot of this discussion has boiled down to a single topic, one
that's been talked about for a very long time: early, cross-area review.
Unfortunately, we've tried several schemes that haven't worked and we
don't really know how to do better. All have had some successes; none
have scaled. It seems to boil down to this: if enough time and effort
is invested, by ADs, WG participants, and reviewers, it can work.
Steve,
Perhaps working groups could be encouraged to do their own cross-area
review, preferably early if not often, by adding a new required section to
every standards-track RFC: Internet Considerations. The purpose of
this section would be to position the current work within the larger Internet
protocol suite, listing cross-layer issues, dependencies on other protocols,
and architectural assumptions. Like Security Considerations, some would
turn out fairly useless, some would turn out to be important and profound,
and the rest would scatter in the middle. But the effort would encourage
working groups to think less narrowly.
I suggest this as a scalable solution to the problem.
Bob Braden
But
it takes that kind of focus, and extra cycles by reviewers who aren't
necessarily interested in the subject area are few and far between.
Extra documents don't help much, either, because they're *strongly*
resented by WG members who see them as just more process imposed by the
IESG.
I tried several things myself when I was AD. If I were still AD, I'd
keep trying. But I don't have any new ideas, and I'm skeptical of
repeating old ones.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf