> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times - particularly > with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left wondering what the > silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private messages to the AD in > question or to the IESG are helpful. And while "+1" is usually bad form, indicating > that you've done a thorough review and found no issues is appreciated. To go into a little detail on this point, let me talk about a relatively recent document that came to the IESG as an AD-sponsored item. The document had, in its life of a few years, been offered to at least two (i'm told three) working groups. None of them objected to it, but none of them wanted it, and, in the end, the author and the sponsoring AD decided to go the AD-sponsored individual submission route. When I reviewed the document and its history, I found that, while it had a bunch of comments about this or that working group not wanting it, there was evidence of exactly two people, apart from the author and AD, who had given it any *substantive* review and comment. The author discussed those comments and revised the document to address them, so that was all fine. I raised this as a question: This is a document being approved in the IETF Stream, with boilerplate that says it has IETF consensus: This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Does that document represent the consensus of the IETF community, given that there was only evidence of substantive review from two people outside the publication path?[1] Now, perhaps... just perhaps... there were dozens of others who reviewed it, thought it was perfectly fine and had no issues, and felt they didn't need to say anything to that effect. Perhaps all those folks who said that they didn't think it should be adopted by the working groups it was being offered to had given it very thorough review, indeed, and found it to be an excellent document... just not something they needed in their working groups. That would have made a huge difference in my opinion of the level of IETF consensus (and would have saved some cuts and bruises on the IESG telechat). Now, never mind any details of this particular document: the point is that it's often useful to go on record somewhere, with someone, saying that you've done a review, you have no issues (or agree with Ferd's issue list, or whatever), and you're part of the consensus on the document. Whether those messages should be posted to the IETF list, to the sponsoring AD, or elsewhere is a question I won't comment on. Barry [1] Arguably one, because one of the two was the document shepherd. But in this case, the shepherd had reviewed it earlier, and could have been asked to shepherd it because of that fact. So I counted it as two.