On 5/27/2014 7:14 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Note that Step 5 in Section 3 says that the IAB Chair will call for comments.
Then, comments received are considered for integration into the document.
The IAB shall determine whether the document is ready for publication based
on the comments received, or whether another round of document editing and,
optionally, a further call for input is required.
In practice, any significant feedback, beyond nits, is brought to the IAB for
discussion.
To distinguish between formalities and practicalities: A long-term
issue with the process has been that it really does proceed as you've
described.
On the average, what is missing is diligent, public iteration with the
folks making comments.
Note the innovative aspects of Pete Resnick's draft on Rough Consensus.
Separate from the formality of requiring RC, there is an explicit focus
on the importance of dealing with issues that are raised.
Having the closed IAB do that dealing only internally is an open-loop
process; it lacks any clear mechanism for converging on, or validating,
that the concerns have been dealt with sufficiently.
The IAB mandate gives it the authority to do what you describe.
However the long-demonstrated benefits of open community review mean
that it is not merely a mechanism for garnering comments, but rather one
for engaging with those making the comments.
This means that it is worth the IAB's considering more sustained, public
interaction about the issues folk raise.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net