Re: Re-revised idea for early cross-area review

[Allison Mankin <mankin at psg.com>]

This is a different sort of review from a WGLC review.

Rather than considering the details of the stabilized
document after the working group gets through with it,
an early review tries to look at a bigger picture:

- Is the approach technically strong in a big picture way?
- Do the reviewers see issues the WG may have missed
  about the choice of the protocol to extend, or design of the
  protocol?
- How does the protocol look in terms of its cross-cutting
  design points including:
    - security and privacy
    - congestion awareness/avoidance
    - internationalization
    - use of addresses, dns

There are some wonderful questions for an early review in an
IAB document, RFC 3426, Section 3, which is just called Questions.

Early review would get an extra measure of cross-cutting quality
into the work.   Great WG Chairs and editors do this, but outside 
reviewers would add more of it.

Allison

> 
> I reviewed MIBs at Cisco for 10 years, and my experience is
> that early review is very expensive.  It takes a lot of extra time and 
> effort
> for both the authors and the reviewers, because the document
> under review is not stable yet.
> 
> I suggest that instead of reviewing a document when a WG first
> accepts an individual submission as a WG item, wait until the
> first WG Last Call.  That's when the WG Chair(s) think the
> document is stable.
> 
> 
> Andy