Hi,
Margaret's commentary on the standards review panel got me thinking of
the same thing I had considered potentially problematic.
If I understood her concern correctly, the point was that in the
standards review panel, the IESG would basically still continue
reviewing the documents (at least to some degree) -- there seems to be
an expectation that they should form an opinion on them (to be
attached to the review request to be sent to the review panel).
When I read the document, my assumption was that the IESG could reduce
the amount of review significantly, and possibly even remove it
completely. There is indeed a danger that the present model could
continue (compare also to the previous RFC-editor submission review,
which wasn't supposed to be all that thorough in the first place!).
I do not think this is a show-stopper though; as many details in the
proposal, things like these can be modified. In this case, I believe
the problem can be easily addressed by giving the ADs the power to
initiate the review requests to the review panel -- and encouraging
them to do so.
This would have several benefits:
* if the expectation would be that drafts would be brought before
the full IESG only in exceptional cases, the load and duplication
of review would not increase significantly.
* if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the IESG
members to ensure the drafts have been sufficiently cross-area
reviewed before requesting advancement (this is obviously also
chairs' responsibility) -- ensuring earlier review.
* again, if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the
IESG members who have a personal interest to participate during the
IETF last call (or even earlier) if they want to perform personal
review.
* it would remove the full IESG review and place it to the different
equivalent body, the review body.
I don't see any disadvantages, except that if there hasn't been
sufficient cross-area review before requesting the review panel to
review, they might have to shuttle the documents back and forth more
often. This approach might also call for IETF-wide vetting of also
WG-produces informational/experimental documents, if they would be
reviewed by fewer people, but if this would be needed, it could be
easily added later on and isn't worth considering at this point.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf