--On Thursday, August 04, 2005 09:35 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi> wrote:
...
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
...
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.
See my note posted a short time ago (which was written before
seeing yours). But, yes. This is exactly the thing I was
commenting about in that note. It is, at some level, a detail.
It can be tuned in any of a number of ways. I picked one, not
quite at random. You suggest a different one above. I think we
need to decide the concept is worthwhile (I'm not sure there is
consensus on that yet), and then sort through these details.
IMO, the "I don't like that detail so the proposal is invalid
and should not be considered" approach is just not a productive
way to proceed.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf