Hi.
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 11:02 +0000, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/12/2012 06:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is
cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is
security. Another one (also for my personally) is internationalization.
Another, more vague one, is general architecture. Early running code is
very often (not always) characterized by the fact that such
cross-concerns are actively or passively ignored.
An excellent point. The fact that a hack works, and can be implemented,
does not alter the fact that it's a hack. This is the sort of thing that
cross-area review is supposed to look for. As a gen-art reviewer, I am
sometimes surprised by what gets through to Last Call in the regular
process - if the whole review process is squeezed down to a couple
of weeks, we will definitely miss cross-area issues.
I also have the experience as a gen-art reviewer of seeing some pretty
awful pieces of work making through even to IESG review.
However, I don't think that a short last call cycle need necessarily
compromise cross-area review. There has always been the possibility for
authors or wg chairs to request a early gen-art review with a view to
checking out whether something is in good shape cross-area and for
non-specialists. This facility is not much used (I think I have done 3
in 8 years on the gen-art team) but it is there, and I guess the team
could cope with a few more since it doesn't drastically alter the total
workload. So it would be entirely possible for a draft that might be
fast-tracked to get some early review.
Given that there is also open source code, reviewers have the chance to
take a look at that and see the degree of hackiness involved.
So I'd be for trying the experiment - and asking some cross-area
reviewers to take an early sniff.
Regards,
Elwyn
Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy specifications
is a Bad Thing.
The Interop show network used to be a Very Good Thing. We've lost that,
though I was delighted to see some actual running code at Bits-n-Bytes
in Atlanta. More please. Maybe a prize for Best Demo?
Brian
I had a look at your draft and checked for "security" and
"internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a
discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns
are adequately addressed.
Regards, Martin.
On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi all,
I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.
The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
"official" status whatsoever.
Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft