On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
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.
Actually the time for asking these questions is long before IETF-wide Last
Call. We need widespread review of proposals for standards-track documents
long before a WG thinks it's finished with those documents. It's a gaping
hole in our process.
Sure. But we have opinionated ADs who read every draft that comes to the IESG.
There is no way they have time to participate in all of the working groups. I,
as a participant, can read drafts as they are discussed in working groups,
because I'm free to ignore all the drafts that are not interesting to me. ADs
don't have that luxury.
Fix that problem, and most of the conflicts between IESG and WGs that
surround DISCUSS votes will go away.
Good reviewers are a scarce resource, and there are 500(*) working group drafts
competing for their attention. That's a hard problem to fix.
Yoav
(*) Went to datatracker, and searched for active drafts that start with
"draft-ietf-". I probably hit some things that have already progressed, but
OTOH the 500 number is too round, and may be a limitation of datatracker.