Hi Keith,
Ø The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments
which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a fairly
small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to notice the
proposed document action and give the document a thorough review.
I do not know whether to call these 'formal' but currently all documents that
go to Last Call also undergo three expert reviews - Gen-ART, Sec-DIR and
OPS-DIR. According to the scope of the documents a few more expert reviews may
be called as required by the WG, shepherd or AD - APPS-Dir, TSV-Dir,
MIB-Doctors, DNS-Dir, etc.
Regards,
Dan
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:02 AM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; IETF
Subject: Re: IESG voting procedures
On Aug 14, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when
typically, most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away. It might
happen for a significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an
area-specific technical flaw.
Here's the point: if an AD can't get at least one or two other ADs to
read the document and agree to join in the blocking, then that AD MUST
NOT be allowed to block the document. That's even the case if the AD
thinks she's found a serious flaw. Because if, out of 14 others in
the IESG, not ONE other is willing to read the document, understand
the issue, and agree on it.
That's also how I interpret the rules. I just don't think that this is
sufficient review. I think that in practice it makes IESG more-or-less a
rubber stamp for any issue that isn't easily fixed with small and often
inconsequential changes to the document text.
The problem is, the ADs are very busy people, and their expertise has to cover
a wide range of topics, so there will be few IESG members who can really
understand a subtle issue. Document reviews outside of one's subject area are
very difficult and require considerable focus. GIven that, even if only one
AD catches a flaw in a document, there's a good chance (though not a certainty
of course) that it's something that warrants more attention. It's far more
likely that no ADs will find the flaw because nobody really took the time to
read the document thoroughly and to understand its implications of the document
outside of the narrow subject area of the working group.
I understand (and agree with) the sentiment that, ultimately, one or two people
shouldn't be able to block a document. Nor do I want documents held up for
trivialities as, unfortunately, sometimes happens. But I've seen many cases
where working groups failed to do an adequate level of review outside of their
narrow areas of concern, and it appears that IESG's current rules and workload
make it difficult for problems to get fixed after a document leaves the WG.
(and people keep arguing to remove steps from our process so that there will be
even less review after a document has progressed to Proposed...)
The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments which,
given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a fairly small
and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to notice the
proposed document action and give the document a thorough review.
To put the question another way: What level of formal technical review,
outside of a WG, best serves IETF's goals?
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf