On 2007-06-27 17:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits (but that is getting better, thanks to PROTO shepherding). But maybe we should be pushing harder to make WGs responsible for getting final external reviews done (and responded to). That would just be more delegation along the path that's been followed for the last several years.Part of the problem with cross area review is that there's such a flood of documents that it's pretty impossible to know unless somebody tells/asks you to review it that you should care.
Indeed. The current reviews such as Gen-ART and secdir reviews don't just happen spontaneously; specific reviewers are triggered by a "dispatcher."
As I said, I'm a little skeptical about "expert review", but for so-called experts as well as the laity in other areas,it might be nice to have some indexing when it touches areas which are known to contain land mines.
We also need reviewers to look for land mines in unexpected places.
We already do this to some degree with Security Considerations, but theyoften read as a "Full Disclosure" part of a contract rather than the basis ofhow operation security is intended in the draft itself. What might be nice is to have some cross domain Cliff's Notes capturingthe jist of how this draft uses or affects other areas? So that people in otherareas can determine more easily if something whacky might be going onand pique their interest in reading it? Were this done sooner in the processrather than later, we well might be able to nip more whackiness before it bubbles all the way up to the IESG.
It sounds like that would be done before passing the document
on for AD review. Is that your idea?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf