Dave, Ralph,
>> Jari has expressed the goal of having AD concerns be raised more publicly. Moving AD review and comment to the IETF Last Call venue nicely accomplishes this, too.
>
> I just posted elsewhere a suggestion to move this review even earlier, to WG last call. Accomplishes most of the same ends, while putting the discussion in front of the IETF participants who are, presumably, most invested in the resulting document.
We've also said that we'd like to move the directorate reviews earlier, to WGLC time. (Subject to us finding a way to do that without increasing directorate workload too much.) See the thread "ways forward with the tail-heavy aspects of the IETF process".
But overall, we have to be careful that we don't move the same processes to a process step that has a different name but in reality will not impact how things are done. Part of the idea for moving directorate reviews earlier is that more of the responsibility for dealing with these could reside with the WGs rather than ADs. And that is a change that affects substance and may improve scalability. Similar reasons are needed for other changes.
I'm not opposed to moving AD reviews to IETF LC time or even earlier, but we'd have to find a way to accommodate both technical comments as well as those relating to taking LC feedback into account. ("draft-foo LC feedback from Joe was was not appropriately addressed" and similar end-of-process checks.)
Jari