Brian,
Do you think it's OK for the IESG to kick a draft right back to
the WG by saying
"This is a mess and fundamentally wrong, but we don't have
time to tell you why, so you have to go find a reviewer." ?
Yes, but...
If an I-D is really bad, it is simply not possible to do anything
approaching a reasonable review, and the IESG don't have the time or
job-skills for this.
However, they should be able to give some pointers even for an I-D they
haven't looked at in detail. Things like: the use of English is very poor;
the document needs complete restructuring; etc.
And this comment needs to come with some helpful advice, such as: ask on
the WG mailing list for someone to help edit the language; have a look at
draft-xyz.txt and see if you can use that structure.
In most cases, however, the I-D has come to the IESG after review by the
'responsible' AD. So why not boot it straight back to that AD (management
lines should be up-and-down)?
One last point. Sometimes a WG runs out of steam for a draft that is
somewhat useful, but Informational. If the draft is readable but really
needs a significant re-write then what? Either publish as it is or
acknowledge that it will probably be discarded (but still return it to the
WG just in case). - This point does not apply to Standards Track (IMHO):
such drafts must be of good quality.
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf