Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-06-27 17:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
> > really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
> > trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits
> > (but that is getting better, thanks to PROTO shepherding). But maybe
> > we should be pushing harder to make WGs responsible for getting
> > final external reviews done (and responded to). That would just be
> > more delegation along the path that's been followed for the last
> > several years.
>
> Part of the problem with cross area review is that there's such a flood
> of documents that it's pretty impossible to know unless somebody tells/asks
> you to review it that you should care.

Indeed. The current reviews such as Gen-ART and secdir reviews don't just
happen spontaneously; specific reviewers are triggered by a "dispatcher."

> As I said, I'm a little skeptical 
> about
> "expert review", but for so-called experts as well as the laity in other 
> areas,
> it might be nice to have some indexing when it touches areas which are
> known to contain land mines.

We also need reviewers to look for land mines in unexpected places.

> We already do this to some degree with Security Considerations, but they
> often read as a "Full Disclosure" part of a contract rather than the 
> basis of
> how operation security is intended in the draft itself.
>
> What might be nice is to have some cross domain Cliff's Notes capturing
> the jist of how this draft uses or affects other areas? So that people 
> in other
> areas can determine more easily if something whacky might be going on
> and pique their interest in reading it? Were this done sooner in the 
> process
> rather than later, we well might be able to nip more whackiness before it
> bubbles all the way up to the IESG.

It sounds like that would be done before passing the document
on for AD review. Is that your idea?

    Brian

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