I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They apparently
range from simple typos ("expand acronyms") to differences of opinion
("WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are at least plausible") to
adding various disclaimers to fundamental design problems ("broken").
Unless we write like lawyers writing product warranties, we will always
have differences of opinion as to which disclaimers are important enough
to call out explicitly and how strongly, regardless of how much
pre-approval review is done.
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Speaking only for myself, and at the slogan level,
I'm troubled with the assumption that the review panel rejection is A
Big Deal. This has unstated assumptions on what kind of people you'd
expect to be on the review panel and/or what kind of review is expected.
As an occasional reviewer myself, a few observations:
* All the indepth reviews I have done have resulted in issues,
* If I haven't found a problem or a request for clarification, I
haven't paid sufficient attention to the review, and
* IMHO there is nothing more frustrating than finding problems (not
maybe critical ones) which don't get fixed for one reason or
another (e.g., because it isn't worth the time to respin the
document, giving that comment would be a "big deal", ...).
I'm troubled with the fact that at least 70 percent of our documents get
at least one DISCUSS - which means that at least one AD thought the
document had a big enough problem that approving the document in its
current form was not the right thing to so.
I know it eludes most of us, most of the time, that almost every
standards action we have seen for as long as we have been in the IETF
has been for Proposed Standards, and (look at 2026 if you think I'm
kidding) these are SUPPOSED to be specifications at an early stage of
maturity.
We need to get to the point where we forward specifications that don't
bounce back most of the time. I haven't said it out loud, but I hope
that a Standards Review Panel might be able to tackle early and
cross-area review - with help from the community - which the IESG was
NOT able to tackle (see ICAR).
So, I'm not asking the Standards Review Panel to approve junk. I'm
asking the community to support getting to the point where most of our
documents that reflect WG concensus are not going to bounce back in late
review. We aren't there yet. We desperately need to be "there".
In My Opinion.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf