I think the IESG, or its various delegates, do need to review everything,
especially keeping in mind that "review" doesn't have to be some big
heavyweight thing each time. I share the same view as others that sometimes
some really broken stuff manages to get up to that level.
And, although it can be annoying, I don't agree that the spurious DISCUSS
problem is all that bad as long as the AD doing so is responsive to being
called on it (and, as Barry mentioned during plenary, that's improved a lot
lately). There are only 15 people that can DISCUSS a document, but those of us
producing broken documents seriously outnumber them.
Part of the problem with spurious DISCUSSes is psychological, and that's for a
different conversation. My only other remark there is that ADs could sometimes
avoid a lot of heartache for themselves and their working groups with an
inquisitive email prior to DISCUSSing something.
I have heard more than once during this meeting some hallway track chatter
about ADs wishing they had invoked their available review resources
(apps-review, the various directorates, etc.) earlier in the process. So
perhaps what's needed is an optional document state prior to Publication
Requested called Review Requested, which triggers an early, informal review
action by the AD and/or her/his review team prior to the formal start of the
publication process. Working group chairs would have to understand that it's
an expensive request (i.e., not to be used frivolously), but still cheaper than
letting a real disaster of a draft get up to the AD or the full IESG.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf