I think the IESG, or its various delegates, do need to review everything, especially keeping in mind that "review" doesn't have to be some big heavyweight thing each time. I share the same view as others that sometimes some really broken stuff manages to get up to that level. And, although it can be annoying, I don't agree that the spurious DISCUSS problem is all that bad as long as the AD doing so is responsive to being called on it (and, as Barry mentioned during plenary, that's improved a lot lately). There are only 15 people that can DISCUSS a document, but those of us producing broken documents seriously outnumber them. Part of the problem with spurious DISCUSSes is psychological, and that's for a different conversation. My only other remark there is that ADs could sometimes avoid a lot of heartache for themselves and their working groups with an inquisitive email prior to DISCUSSing something. I have heard more than once during this meeting some hallway track chatter about ADs wishing they had invoked their available review resources (apps-review, the various directorates, etc.) earlier in the process. So perhaps what's needed is an optional document state prior to Publication Requested called Review Requested, which triggers an early, informal review action by the AD and/or her/his review team prior to the formal start of the publication process. Working group chairs would have to understand that it's an expensive request (i.e., not to be used frivolously), but still cheaper than letting a real disaster of a draft get up to the AD or the full IESG. -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf