Dave:
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is
to make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG
also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a
step toward the ITU model.
As specious lines of logic go, your note was pretty efficient. It ignored
the specifics of the concerns being raised in this thread, their merits, and
the suggestions being made, and it invokes a cliche'd bogeyman.
For example, the suggestions being made do not intent or imply that there
would be no technical content to the work of an AD. Also note that there are
many things that the ITU does; are we supposed to make a point of not doing
any of them, simply because the ITU does them?
The IETF culture, structure and process are massively different from the
ITU's. None of the changes being proposed would turn the IETF into the ITU
or even move us towards them.
If the merit of a suggestion is good or bad, let's focus on that, rather than
on who else is or is not doing it.
But if you really want to focus on ITU fear, take a look at the time it now
takes to produce IETF specs, their increased complexity and the degree of
their eventual industry deployment. A comparison on the style and substance
of IETF vs. ITU technical work might prove enlightening...
Several people suggested that the AD could be a manager with little technical
clue. I raised the extreme of that line of thinking.
It is clear that no single person has all of the detailed knowledge to review
every aspect of every IETF document. That said, it is very important that the
AD have enough clue to detect a probable concern, and then they can turn to
appropriate experts in the form of directorates, personal contacts, or even a
plea for the right mail list. This requires some insight into the core
technologies for the area and good working relationships within the area.
Russ