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

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On 11. august 2004 13:11 -0400 Melinda Shore <mshore at cisco.com> wrote:

> > If it is to be submitted to IESG independent of a WG then an AD can
> > handle it.
>
> I agree.  What I really don't want to see is the reviewer pool, which I
> think needs to be regarded as a scarce and precious resource,
> being used to review drafts at the request of an author.  That can be
> handled through the usual mechanisms (posting a "hey, look at this"
> message
> to the appropriate mailing list, contacting interested people out-of-
> band, etc.).

When I first read the suggestion of "AD can handle it", my AD-load alarms 
went off - we have problems with getting cycles to handle independent 
submissions for the standards track that the author thinks is ready today, 
and doing it earlier in the process wouldn't make it easier (methinks).

But after thinking for a few minutes, it looks more reasonable; if the 
NORMAL path for a non-WG submission for review is through a WG chair of a 
relevant WG (it doesn't have to be a WG document), it's OK to say that "if 
an AD feels the need to have a document reviewed, he/she can ask for it".

So we get a statement saying:

- A WG chair can request review for a document he/she finds relevant to the 
WG
- An AD can request review of any document
- Neither one is obliged to request a review. It's their call to do so.

Makes sense?

                  harald




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