But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and
timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to
have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good
Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to
get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed?
From the ICAR review team page at
http://www.machshav.com/~icar/reviews/people/
one can observe that only two review requests were ever
submitted, and just one of these (a request submitted by me)
resulted in a review (by Bernard). The other requested
review, actually on Dave Crocker's list, is still pending.
So, it seems like WG chairs were not very interested in
getting help with early reviews, but I would not say this
is necessarily a failure without giving it more time. It
takes time to change mindsets, in the beginning you must
be regularly reminded about the availability of the
early cross-area review team. Not all documents would
naturally benefit much from "WG external" early reviews,
and especially not every revision of a draft. The review I
got from Bernard was very useful, and I would be happy to
make use of this resource pool again, for some documents
at certain stages in the document development process.
Rgds,
/L-E, ROHC WG chair
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf