Re: [Icar] icar-experiment-early-review-00 comments

[Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net>]

Folks,



PS> 5.1  Who requests a review

This is the sort of section that nicely demonstrates some core problems
in IETF process.  The problem that this sub-section is trying to solve
is real.  If there is no coordination in making requests, then things
really are a mess.

The question is whether we have made things better by micro-managing
working group internal operations in this document.  Not surprisingly, I
think we have made them worse.

If the document says something like:  "it is the the working group's
responsibility to obtain necessary reviews", then the document has said
all it needs to.  It has made clear the responsibility and has left the
details to the folks who have to do the work.

Think of all the other micro-events that we do not -- and should not --
dictate in the life of a working group.

One of the benefits of a well-run IETF working group is its freedom to
organize in a way that works for that particular topic and that
particular set of participants.

Let's not take that away.

(A nice side-effect of such simplification of the icar spec is that the
icar working group gets done quicker.)



PS> This was precisely my point -- I think the doc or the process needs to
PS> have a good understanding how it will handle the authors who request
PS> reviews of their half-baked ideas (when they shouldn't).

along the lines of Melinda's comment: the icar mechanism really is
tailored for formal working group efforts, and so requests come formally
from the working group.  that should provide enough of a filter, no?

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>


_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar