On 4/12/13 5:52 PM, t.p. wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arturo Servin" <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM >> >> Not answering any particular post. Just a comment. >> >> The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was > followed >> and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it >> was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this >> particular process should be reviewed and take actions accordingly > (e.g. >> returning the document to the wg). >> >> But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and >> change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something > wrong >> in our process because that means that the document had a serious >> problem and we didn't spot it in the process or an IESG member is > using >> its power to change a document according to its personal beliefs. > > My experience has been the former, where the IESG has raised concerns > about arcane topics, such as security and congestion, of which the WG > had limited expertise. This might be caught by a directorate review, > but those seem patchy; it might be caught by IETF Last Call, but if you > are an expert at an arcane topic then you are probably too busy to > follow them. > > So I do see the IESG DISCUSSing, when it would have been lovely to have > had, but it is hard to see quite how, it resolved earlier. We just do > not have the breadth of knowledge of arcane topics. Perhaps we need an "arcane topic reviewer" before the LC. .as > > Tom Petch > >> Just a thought, >> as >> >> On 4/11/13 2:54 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG > review, >>> I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its >>> documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026): >>> >>> The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted > to >>> it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria > for >>> the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in >>> addition determine whether or not the technical quality and > clarity >>> of the specification is consistent with that expected for the >>> maturity level to which the specification is recommended. >>> >>> Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and > the >>> IESG Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I >>> believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their >>> "IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying >>> Position ballot, with their personal review. >>> >>> My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their > personal >>> review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that >>> documents are modified to appease a small community that does not >>> justify its position as representative. >>> >>> How do others feel about this? >>> >>> Joe >> >