Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved
>> them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.
>> This could serve two purposes:
>> - some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
>> - encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting.
> I think I like this idea, but also, speaking for myself I would refuse
> to review a few more documents of things that are too far out of my
> area of expertise (which might be a good or bad thing, depending on
> whether anyone else steps up)
I think that this is certainly wise, but I also think that having reviews
From people who are completely cold is often good. It depends; I've been
asked to review some extension to a TE-RSVP (for instance, probably got that
TLA wrong) document that basically just added two new attributes, and I can't
even comprehend the thing being extended, as it's an extension of something
else I don't know. I agree with you: there is little I can add other than
saying, "paragraph four seems awkward".
But that in itself has value, but it's not a useful review to the AD.
But there are other things you and I could come to cold, like (to use my
example above), that might be:
"An Architecture for doing Traffic Engineering with RSVP" where we might
actually be able to say, "Yes, I understood the problem, and I agree that the
solution seems to be in scale with the problem, and the security posture
seems appropriate"
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
