Dave Crocker wrote: > Anecdotal. Mine. Over enough years to represent a pattern. (I'm not > alone in this, but I'm reporting my own experience) In 25 years, not one > single RFC I've worked on had a serious problem caught by an AD, though > many were eventually discovered to have serious problems. Some were > delayed by large numbers of non-substantive or flat-out-wrong AD > Discusses, however. So we got significant costs with insignificant > benefits and significant damage. Dave, this may not have occurred to you, but there is another correlation here that may be the one that matters: _you_ have not had any AD reviews catch significant issues. Perhaps you are exceptional. I am not being facetious--I suspect that this is in fact the case. > Inconvenient is such a mild word. The aggregate effect of these kinds of > hassles is decisions by potential participants to take their > specifications elsewhere. If they don't want AD review, they can publish through the ISE! I don't think many people realize this is an option, but AFAIK that's the whole point of having an ISE: to publish things that really are requests for comments.