ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

2013-04-12 02:13:48
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.

IMHO, if the IESG members sticks to their own criteria at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html,
i.e. do not DISCUSS a document for spurious reasons, they
are doing just fine. If they don't stick to those criteria,
complaint is justified.

Of course this will always be a matter of judgment.

Regards
   Brian

On 11/04/2013 18:54, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,

As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review,
I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its
documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):

   The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
   it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
   the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in
   addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
   of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
   maturity level to which the specification is recommended.

Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the
IESG Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I
believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their
"IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying
Position ballot, with their personal review.

My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their personal
review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that
documents are modified to appease a small community that does not
justify its position as representative.

How do others feel about this?

Joe


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>