On 7/31/2018 10:14 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
And I agree with you that the IETF last call review process is badly broken. The problem is that it becomes an N^2 algorithm when in principle every IETF participant is on the hook for every document.
CP> I really did not mean to suggest that. A lot of IETF participants would not be on the hook for *any* documents. But at the time a document is adopted by a WG, a group of reviewers should be known for that document (in addition to the document authors).
AB> I agree too with both, and I draft-readiness should be managed/directed by the AD of the WG. The AD and WG chair must be responsible when the draft is ready for WGLC.
AB> Even WG discussions should be assisted, some times it is not easy to discuss with some authors they think the draft is their work only.
AB> I suggest that the ADs appoint one participant to be against authors per draft per developing it per WG, to make discussions on the list (against does not mean always against but means that he/she is responsible to say no/why-no when needed). I remember n the graduation days we use this way to make discussions and better work.
AB> The AD should find a way to make participants discuss more deep into each work. The AD should work efficiently and use all IETF resources, to help optimisation and performance.
Best Regards
AB
