|
On May 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote: I don't speak for Dave, but it makes sense that when a document reaches the IESG telechat, the questions to be asked are (1) Did this get sufficient review by sufficiently capable people, and (2) Has the process been followed, including have all issues
been addressed.
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible enough is at IETF last call. This is true of any
participants, and ADs can do this too, regardless of whether their presence might intimidate the crowd. It could even be that if ADs voice their concerns at that time, others might join in, making the LC time more useful and less about just waiting two or
four weeks.
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how significant this extra work would be,
but it would come at a time that we're thinking of ways to reduce AD workload. It might also require prolonging the LC time, because there would be actual discussion in it.
Yoav
|