ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

2013-04-15 09:23:18
On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Andy Bierman <andy(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
During IESG review, the ADs from other areas should
restrict their comments to issues related to their area.
The final review should avoid changes made
which are feature redesigns or feature enhancements,
and limit changes to bug fixes only.

I have some sympathy for this argument, since most of the comments I've made 
about drafts since I started reviewing them as an AD, where I felt the most 
unsure I should be making the comment, have indeed been out-of-area or process 
comments.   At the same time, I have expertise in quite a few protocols that 
aren't in my area, and I don't claim to be a perfect expert on every protocol 
that's being worked on by a working group for which I am responsible AD.

So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think it's 
mistaken.   I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice that 
looks like a problem.   Then we can have a conversation about it.   What I've 
seen in the past two formal telechats, which are the only two I've been on as 
an AD, as opposed to a guest, is that out-of-area DISCUSSes and comments do get 
raised, and they get discussed, which is the whole point.  Typically either 
some adjustment is made to the spec to make it clearer (this has been the case 
for nearly all of my DISCUSSes), or the AD who raised the DISCUSS is satisfied 
by the discussion and clears the DISCUSS without any change being made to the 
document.

So it's hard to see the harm in this, although I know it's stressful for the 
authors and working group chairs who have to answer the questions.   I've been 
there, and I know what it's like, and I'm very conscious of that when I write a 
DISCUSS or a comment.

On the other hand, sometimes a document attracts a great deal of comment.   
Sometimes someone raises a point that is impossible to refute, and that clearly 
matters.   I want that point to be raised whether the AD raising it is 
responsible for that area or not.

Reviewing documents as an AD is really hard work.   We had an easy telechat 
last Thursday—I think we had less than 150 pages of protocol specs to read for 
the telechat.   It would not surprise me if the number of careful reviews of 
those documents doubled last week, for most of the documents.   I think it's 
absurd to suggest that such a review won't catch any issues, and it's 
unreasonable to suggest that a reviewer keep silent on an issue he or she sees 
simply because it's "not their area."

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