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

[Thierry Ernst <ernst at sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

I support a compulsory review at the 1st WG Last Call, and earlier
reviews when and if appropriate, i.e.  at the request of the a WG chair
(anyone, not necessarily the one chairing the WG where the draft is
published) or an AD (anyone).

IMHO, making the review compulsory at the 1st opus of the draft as a WG doc
would make the process time consumimg for the drafts not in good shape
(but useful for those which already are in good shape). 

If the review is to be compulsory for -00,  drafts not in sufficient good
shape should not be published. Then this could work too.

My 2 cents.
Thierry


On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:31:42 -0800
"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
> > To: <wgchairs at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:16 AM
> > Subject: Re-revised idea for early cross-area review
> ...
> > - NEW: we appoint a volunteer dispatcher, who will assign drafts to reviewers
> >    on a round-robin basis, to ensure that each draft gets at least one review
> > 
> > - reviewers will send their generalist reviews to the early-reviews list
> >    for archiving, and to the WG concerned
> > 
> > - WGs are expected to treat these generalist reviews seriously, especially
> >    when they indicate serious cross-area problems or gaps. But their formal
> >    place in the IETF process is the same as any other comments
> > 
> > If you think the general idea is good, we'll solicit your inputs for
> > the early review guidelines, on the foundations of the work done by the
> > former ICAR WG.
> ...
> 
> I like the general idea.  In reading some of the other comments in this
> thread, I think we may be tripping over different understandings and
> expectations for "reviews" at different points in a document's journey
> through the process.  I also think that "big picture" or "generalist"
> comments are especially useful early in the cycle, so that considerations
> like manageability, internationalization, security, scalability, and so on
> are given some thought from the very beginning, not as WG last call
> comments.  The very fact that a -00- frequently will not have fully
> stable terminology or even structure makes it easier to address
> problems like terminology conflicts from the outset, rather than having
> to work around "established usage" when WG last call happens.
> 
> Randy
>