On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm saying that I know of drafts
that have been nearly rewritten during such back-and-forth, so what popped
out was largely unrelated to what went in. In such cases, I think the
document should have been returned to the working group with comments, not
worked on privately.
I agree. That should be standard operating procedure.
Brian