Hi Keith, Ø The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a fairly small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to notice the proposed document action and give the document a thorough review. I do not know whether to call these ‘formal’ but currently all documents that go to Last Call also undergo three expert reviews – Gen-ART, Sec-DIR and OPS-DIR. According to the scope of the documents a few more expert reviews may be called as required by the WG, shepherd or AD – APPS-Dir, TSV-Dir, MIB-Doctors, DNS-Dir, etc. Regards, Dan From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore On Aug 14, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
That's also how I interpret the rules. I just don't think that this is sufficient review. I think that in practice it makes IESG more-or-less a rubber stamp for any issue that isn't easily fixed with small and often inconsequential changes to the document text. The problem is, the ADs are very busy people, and their expertise has to cover a wide range of topics, so there will be few IESG members who can really understand a subtle issue. Document reviews outside of one's subject area are very difficult and require considerable focus. GIven that, even if only one AD catches a flaw in a document, there's a good chance (though not a certainty of course) that it's something that warrants more attention. It's far more likely that no ADs will find the flaw because nobody really took the time to read the document thoroughly and to understand its implications of the document outside of the narrow subject area of the working group. I understand (and agree with) the sentiment that, ultimately, one or two people shouldn't be able to block a document. Nor do I want documents held up for trivialities as, unfortunately, sometimes happens. But I've seen many cases where working groups failed to do an adequate level of review outside of their narrow areas of concern, and it appears that IESG's current rules and workload make it difficult for problems to get fixed after a document leaves the WG. (and people keep arguing to remove steps from our process so that there will be even less review after a document has progressed to Proposed...) The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a fairly small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to notice the proposed document action and give the document a thorough review. To put the question another way: What level of formal technical review, outside of a WG, best serves IETF's goals? Keith |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf