Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 18, 2019, at 9:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 19-Jul-19 13:23, Keith Moore wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 18, 2019, at 9:16 PM, Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:job@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>> >>> I think you just now offended basically every working group participant. >>> >> >> Not deliberately, of course. But in general WGs can sometimes exhibit tunnel vision. And ietf has a bad habit of trying to bypass tussles by creating WGs with overly narrow scope.., which doesn’t solve the tussle, just exacerbates it. So yeah, in general, WG output needs external review. > > I think it varies enormously between WGs. There are some that are small, expert, highly specialised and really do know more than anyone else about their topic, which is relatively self-contained. There are others that don't meet any of those criteria. Job's right about the first kind. Keith's right about the second kind, which really do need third party review. As a GenART reviewer, I've seen all sorts. Yes, and I’ve repeatedly said I could see optimizing in corner cases.. But I think it’s a rare WG that doesn’t have any potential to adversely affect other interests. Keith
