Keith Moore wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:54 AM, t.petch wrote: > > > > By contrast, the delays in producing an RFC seem to revolve around > > WG process, I'm convinced the problem is primarily in the WG processing of the document, _not_ in the IESG review and neither in the 3 maturity levels. The current maturity levels "Proposed", "Draft" and "Standard" are MORE about document quality than protocol usefulness and popularity -- and they IMHO accurately reflect (lack of) document quality in most cases. > > What I get from this is that the entire community needs to be involved > in review and input of future RFCs much earlier in the process than > Last Call. In my experience, the problem is generally not that the > people "coming out of the woodwork" are making irrelevant suggestions, > because IESG is fairly good at ignoring these. The problem seems to be > that by the time a document as reached Last Call, the working group is > past the point where it can meaningfully consider input from outside > for anything but the most trivial changes - and the problems identified > in Last Call are often much more fundamental than that. Maybe it would help if the early I-Ds would be more explicit in reflecting the document status and state of the discussion, for each and every section and subsection -- so that reviewers get a better picture about what level of feedback the WG is looking for. It might also help if the early document would try to get the solution architecture document accurately before fleshing out the details of the implementation. A lot of proposals start out with the implementation details of the solution and little about the solution architecture. IMHO, Design flaws that require non-trivial changes are *MUCH* easier to notice and to discuss at the abstract solution architecture level. The reason why the TLS renegotiation flaw went unnoticed for so many years was that noone spent two hours on describing the architecture of the TLS renegotiation. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf