Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Actually we are pretty good about getting early reviews from, for instance,
>> sec-dir. Chairs ask, and they happen, and I think that this has been good.
>> We also get food feedback from IANA, and we can get it early as well.
> I didn't know IANA could be asked to review early...
> I know we sometimes do early reviews in sec-dir, but not necessarily
> often enough?
It varies greatly, but I think that the sec-dir reviews are occuring much
earlier on average. Maybe Tero has some stats, but my guess is that more
than 50% of documents get a sec-dir review before WGLC.
>> The problem is getting the majority of the IESG to put credence in these
>> reviews is part where I think we lose time.
> Interesting. Well, maybe that should change. How much de-novo review
> does IESG do? Do most ADs fully read and review every I-D that comes
> up, or do they mostly rely on the review record from the shepherd and
> directorates?
Sponsoring ADs seem to fully read. I'd just like them to do so during WGLC,
I think. Many times sponsoring ADs will know what other cross-area review
would be useful because they know what's going on elsewhere.
I think that other ADs are relying more and more on shepherd write-ups, and
are more and more splitting the load among the ADs (trusting each other).
But, we do see many documents that still get pretty heavy editing during IESG
Discuss. This is often seriously dis-heartening to document authors, who
often have done a marathon of edits for WGLC two months earlier.
The time between beginning WGLC and exiting IESG is around 6 months is my
guess.
I think it was Bill Fenner that had a way to get stats?
I don't know if they are continuously captured, and if so, where.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
