Joel,
<snip>
>
> Would it address your concern if the document said something like:
> "Reviewers should be sensitive to the difference between
> their personal opinions (and preferences) and issues
> which will affect the correct operation or interoperation
> of the documents under review"
> ?
>
> I have no problem with pointing out that there are two different
> categories. I have real problems with trying to define a hard line
> which distinguishes them.
Really? Imagine the undiplomatic version of a review:
I thought that the IESG was crazy to approve this WG; its
basic premise is stupid, the basic idea is undeployable, and
if deployed, it will seriously harm Internet congestion control.
Now, here are my comments on the MIB for this stupid protocol:
The MIB is well constructed, consistent, and in fact it's
the easiest MIB to read that I've ever seen. Apart from one
minor typo on page 97, it's ready for publication.
When you look at it like that, the solution seems obvious.
A reviewer who has fundamental disagreement with the work
under review should IMHO separate that disagreement out from
the review, and send it as a distinct last call comment,
so that document quality control is not mixed up with
fundamental criticisms of the work.
I agree there may not always be a hard line, but if in doubt,
separating the disagreement out seems best.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf