I don't see any reason at all that IESG should be spending much
time debating ideas that don't have a supporting constituency
larger than the set of authors of the document just in order to
keep it from looking like IETF is supporting their boneheaded ideas.
In that case you let the Area Director, or his nominated expert, be the
first line of defence. Then the IESG only needs to get involved if the
expert's ruling is appealed.
well, I was talking specifically about the I-D review process.
of course, for many kinds of protocol extensions, the review process
works just this way - the designated expert serves to offload the IESG.
but different protocols vary in the kinds of harm that extensions can do.
the use of a designated expert in some cases doesn't mean it's
applicable to all protocol extension mechanisms.
Keith