On May 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Scott Brim
<scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IESG education.
OK.
I don't speak for Dave, but it makes sense that when a document reaches the
IESG telechat, the questions to be asked are (1) Did this get sufficient review
by sufficiently capable people, and (2) Has the process been followed,
including have all issues been addressed.
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible enough is at IETF last
call. This is true of any participants, and ADs can do this too, regardless of
whether their presence might intimidate the crowd. It could even be that if ADs
voice their concerns at that time, others might join in, making the LC time
more useful and less about just waiting two or four weeks.
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how significant
this extra work would be, but it would come at a time that we're thinking of
ways to reduce AD workload. It might also require prolonging the LC time,
because there would be actual discussion in it.
Yoav