Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

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

 



On 5/16/13 2:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
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.

Actually the time for asking these questions is long before IETF-wide Last Call. We need widespread review of proposals for standards-track documents long before a WG thinks it's finished with those documents. It's a gaping hole in our process.

As a Chair and as an AD I have asked for external and cross area reviews of some documents before they were considered for WG acceptance. this doesn't apply to all work we processed but it does apply to those where we were clear that such input was going to be useful. One case you can see for that today is with capwap extensions that are potentially in opsawg.
Fix that problem, and most of the conflicts between IESG and WGs that surround DISCUSS votes will go away.
Maybe but I wouldn't take that as an article of faith. You're going to get pressure for more changes when fresh eyes review something.
Keith






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