On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > During IESG review, the ADs from other areas should > restrict their comments to issues related to their area. > The final review should avoid changes made > which are feature redesigns or feature enhancements, > and limit changes to bug fixes only. I have some sympathy for this argument, since most of the comments I've made about drafts since I started reviewing them as an AD, where I felt the most unsure I should be making the comment, have indeed been out-of-area or process comments. At the same time, I have expertise in quite a few protocols that aren't in my area, and I don't claim to be a perfect expert on every protocol that's being worked on by a working group for which I am responsible AD. So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice that looks like a problem. Then we can have a conversation about it. What I've seen in the past two formal telechats, which are the only two I've been on as an AD, as opposed to a guest, is that out-of-area DISCUSSes and comments do get raised, and they get discussed, which is the whole point. Typically either some adjustment is made to the spec to make it clearer (this has been the case for nearly all of my DISCUSSes), or the AD who raised the DISCUSS is satisfied by the discussion and clears the DISCUSS without any change being made to the document. So it's hard to see the harm in this, although I know it's stressful for the authors and working group chairs who have to answer the questions. I've been there, and I know what it's like, and I'm very conscious of that when I write a DISCUSS or a comment. On the other hand, sometimes a document attracts a great deal of comment. Sometimes someone raises a point that is impossible to refute, and that clearly matters. I want that point to be raised whether the AD raising it is responsible for that area or not. Reviewing documents as an AD is really hard work. We had an easy telechat last Thursday—I think we had less than 150 pages of protocol specs to read for the telechat. It would not surprise me if the number of careful reviews of those documents doubled last week, for most of the documents. I think it's absurd to suggest that such a review won't catch any issues, and it's unreasonable to suggest that a reviewer keep silent on an issue he or she sees simply because it's "not their area."