I'm pretty much not in consensus in DNSOP right now, and I take that in good part because working consensus is a pretty high value proposition. I think if I was 'outside the church' on a matter of technical merit I'd feel more like standing up and shouting about it. But, mostly, that WG is talking politics when I chose to disagree (I hate to mis-characterize it, but thats what I see the ALT and related discussion as: it has next to no technical merit to me, its a politics conversation) People in the WG talk to me outside of the list, and likewise. I'm ok with that, because in the end, consensus is a high value thing. When an author says to me "Its AUTH48 and we're in IESG process, if you make me re-do this it has to go back into the WG to get signed off, so tell me now: is this real, or just opinion" I take that on board. So I draw a personal distinction between matters of substance, and matters of opinion, in how I chose to flag dissent. and I would encourage others to do the same: try and approach the question from the perspective of: "is this materially relating to bits on the wire, and how protocol endpoints work" distinct from "is this something about a human process, I just don't agree with" If you're talking about UTF-8 labels and encoded ASN.1 strings, its case 1. If you're talking which of IAB and ICANN have primacy determining what labels exist, you're case 2. -G On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There is a procedure (that I thought was pretty widely known) that allows > chairs to request early cross-are review when they think it is helpful. I > know that several of the review teams support this. > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 2/14/17 6:56 PM, Randall Gellens wrote: >> >> At 12:18 PM +1300 2/15/17, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> 2. As a Gen-ART reviewer I've often seen drafts at IETF LC that >>> really *need* a general, in-depth review. >> >> >> As a document author, I appreciate the area reviews done by GEN, SEC, >> etc. However, I think they would be just as useful and perhaps more >> timely if done during WGLC (assuming the WG does a WGLC). >> >