Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits
(but that is getting better, thanks to PROTO shepherding). But maybe
we should be pushing harder to make WGs responsible for getting
final external reviews done (and responded to). That would just be
more delegation along the path that's been followed for the last
several years.
Part of the problem with cross area review is that there's such a flood
of documents that it's pretty impossible to know unless somebody tells/asks
you to review it that you should care. As I said, I'm a little skeptical
about
"expert review", but for so-called experts as well as the laity in other
areas,
it might be nice to have some indexing when it touches areas which are
known to contain land mines.
We already do this to some degree with Security Considerations, but they
often read as a "Full Disclosure" part of a contract rather than the
basis of
how operation security is intended in the draft itself.
What might be nice is to have some cross domain Cliff's Notes capturing
the jist of how this draft uses or affects other areas? So that people
in other
areas can determine more easily if something whacky might be going on
and pique their interest in reading it? Were this done sooner in the process
rather than later, we well might be able to nip more whackiness before it
bubbles all the way up to the IESG.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf