Re: NOT GOOD: Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547

[dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou at psg.com>]

alex:

my 2 cents here...

Alex Zinin wrote:

> Guys-
>
>  Supposedly this document has been LC'ed in the OSPF WG, and reviewed in
>  RTG-DIR, yet I find an _awful_ lot of issues when it comes to the IESG :(
>  These should definitely have been caught by these reviews, that's why we
>  refer these docs to the experts...
>
>  I'll stop grumbling now and ask this question--how do we make sure
>  something like this does not happen again?

the question is how to avoid false positive, so the following ideas 
might be considered in addition to the one already in place as i don't 
think they would create any additional overhead (assuming as part of 
point 2 that two sub-sequent reviews would be easier than a single one)

1. keep track on documents that impact routing area protocols that are 
on WG last call, the webpage maintained by bill is a good way to achieve 
 it - this could be a trigger for people listed in 
<http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/rtg-dir/rtg-dir-skills.html> even if a 
formal review as not been assigned

2. when i-d becomes a wg doc. in a wg outside the routing area provide 
some follow-up (this can be achieved when the document becomes a wg i-d) 
i don't think this can necessarily happen spontaneously, so... a more 
deliberate approach would be advisable here if idea is to keep as 
objective to achieve efficient/fast progress. It could be possible to 
ask for reviews of document external to the routing area when they 
involve routing area protocols (when their status change from individual 
to wg i-d). At the end this could also be complementary to the revision 
of the document when close to be finalized and then have to raise flags 
when implementations are already more progressed

thanks,
- dimitri.