On 26/12/2015 05:26, Ted Lemon wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Anecdotal. Mine. Over enough years to represent a pattern. (I'm not
alone in this, but I'm reporting my own experience) In 25 years, not one
single RFC I've worked on had a serious problem caught by an AD, though
many were eventually discovered to have serious problems. Some were
delayed by large numbers of non-substantive or flat-out-wrong AD
Discusses, however. So we got significant costs with insignificant
benefits and significant damage.
Dave, this may not have occurred to you, but there is another correlation
here that may be the one that matters: _you_ have not had any AD reviews
catch significant issues. Perhaps you are exceptional. I am not being
facetious--I suspect that this is in fact the case.
Inconvenient is such a mild word. The aggregate effect of these kinds of
hassles is decisions by potential participants to take their
specifications elsewhere.
If they don't want AD review, they can publish through the ISE! I don't
think many people realize this is an option, but AFAIK that's the whole point
of having an ISE: to publish things that really are requests for comments.
But they do not get published without review; it's just that the criteria
are different, and sometimes the ISE says no. (Speaking as a member of the
Independent Submissions Editorial Board, as a published author in the
Independent
stream, and as a co-author of a draft currently submitted to that stream.)
Brian