Re: Purpose of IESG Review

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




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
>>
> 




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]