ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

2013-04-13 02:06:16
On 13/04/2013 03:46, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
If you think security and congestion are arcane, you have... problems.

I think this may be the point that Diana Raft was making in draft-draft-draft
about 12 days ago.

   Brian


This was an actual ietf working geoup, and not some e.g. W3c thing?

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of t.p. [daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com]
Sent: 12 April 2013 21:52
To: Arturo Servin; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arturo Servin" <arturo(_dot_)servin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.

The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process should be reviewed and take actions accordingly
(e.g.
returning the document to the wg).

But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something
wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a serious
problem and we didn't spot it in the process or an IESG member is
using
its power to change a document according to its personal beliefs.

My experience has been the former, where the IESG has raised concerns
about arcane topics, such as security and congestion, of which the WG
had limited expertise.  This might be caught by a directorate review,
but those seem patchy; it might be caught by IETF Last Call, but if you
are an expert at an arcane topic then you are probably too busy to
follow them.

So I do see the IESG DISCUSSing, when it would have been lovely to have
had, but it is hard to see quite how, it resolved earlier.  We just do
not have the breadth of knowledge of arcane topics.

Tom Petch

Just a thought,
as

On 4/11/13 2:54 PM, 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>