Scott, You are absolutely correct. An interesting question is whether we could design a distributed system that achieves the same effect at the same (or better) quality? For example, could we achieve the same effect by convening a review panel for each ID consisting of one or two members of the directorate of every area? -Stewart Sent from my iPad > On 15 Nov 2015, at 20:11, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Maybe I missed it, but I do not recall seeing mention in this thread of a significant aspect > of an ADs role – reviewing documents from outside there area – i.e., the > cross-jurisdictional review step that the IESG review represents. > > This is a major differentiator between the IETF and most other IT > standards development organizations. In most other organizations > the only technical expertise applied to a proposal comes from within a > working group (working party etc) – a group that will always have a > limited scope of expertise > > The IESG’s cross-area review ensures that proposals undergo > review by experts in areas that will likely not be represented within > a particular working group. > > Documents, no matter how clearly written, produced by an individual > working group, no matter the level of subject matter expertise, can > benefit from careful review by experts who have expertise outside the > scope of the people participating in the working group. > > When I was an AD (a rather long time ago now) I saw many documents > where inadequate attention had been paid to security, congestion control, > manageability, etc. > > i.e., it is not sufficient to say, as has been said during this thread, that the > onus should fall on a working group chair to ensure the quality of the > documents that are produced by a working group, the best documents > can be made better, in terms of being used on the Internet, by the > cross-area review done by the IESG. > > Scott