On 5/16/13 4:07 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > Hear, hear. One suggestion I've heard several times is a kind of cross-area buddy system (e.g., ask or assign someone with clue in Area X to help WG Y in Area Z early and often with regard to specific issues that are often addressed in Area X). Unfortunately, this suffers from the same problem that too many WGs suffer from on their own: participant burnout. But I still think it's a good idea... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/