--On Friday, April 23, 2010 10:20 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
John,
the expectation is that
they will use discretion and initiate a community [re]review
of proposed changes when appropriate.
... and I think that is already happening. We do bring
documents back at times, either completely bringing them back
in the process or confirm a change with the working group.
Yes. I hope it has been clear that I'm not convinced that we
have a significant problem in this area. I was responding to
what seemed to be otherwise-unchallenged (except by the two of
us) suggestions that we add a lot of process and reviews to the
document editing and publication cycle. If there is any issue
at all, I think there are two "virtual knobs" that might need to
be adjusted slightly:
(1) How much change can be made during IESG review by "RFC
Editor notes" versus having new drafts posted so the RFC Editor
gets clean copy and the community gets a chance to look. I
think that sometimes there have been errors on the side of doing
too much in such notes and that posting a new draft instead is
rarely harmful. It is, however, clearly a judgment call, not
something about which I think an attempt at firm rules would be
worth the effort.
(2) What kinds of changes can be made at AUTH48 without bringing
documents back at that stage and initiating an additional
review. Again a judgment call. Again, I think that some things
that should have been re-reviewed after changes have not been.
I don't have nearly enough data to know whether things have been
pulled back than didn't need it. But, unlike the "spin a new
I-D before the document goes to the RFC Editor" case, taking a
document back to a WG has real and significant costs, so good
judgment is very important.
I suspect we are in violent agreement.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf