I support the publication of this document.
In general, the document is clearly written, explains the processes
followed for gen-Art review, and forms a valuable snapshot of the
procedures followed at this time.
It makes it very clear that the document does not, in any way, shape or
form, attempt to modify the rules for IETF work.
One point that I can't see clearly stated (I may have missed it) is that
both the reviews and the names of the reviewers are public. This may
seem obvious now, but wasn't obvious when the process got started; I
think it is important to call this out.
Nits:
- Section 4.3 links to I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis - this draft expired in
2008. New target needed.
- In the same bulleted list, the last bullet should either be a
non-bullet or have "As well as" removed from its beginning.
- In section 4.4, a note should be made about groups of I-Ds. I think
the process is that when a document set is Last Called as a set, one
reviewer handles it if possible - but I am not sure about this.
- Section 6 claims that the quality of I-Ds has increased, but gives
only a single data point (2007). Is there a second datapoint that is
missing somehow?
Thanks for doing this!
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf