On 26/12/2015 05:26, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 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.
But they do not get published without review; it's just that the criteria
are different, and sometimes the ISE says no. (Speaking as a member of the
Independent Submissions Editorial Board, as a published author in the Independent
stream, and as a co-author of a draft currently submitted to that stream.)
Brian