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

[Allison Mankin <mankin at psg.com>]

> 
> >
> >Q: what happens when the number of review requests exceed the number of 
> >reviewers,
> >or a review is taking a really long time?  (How long is a really long 
> >time in this case?)
> >
> >Do WGs proceed anyway with draft-01 and beyond?
> >Or wait until their draft-00 review is finished before proceeding?
> >
> 
> The dispatcher finds another reviewer and downgrades the delinquent 
> assignee.  Russ and I kept track of which security directorate members 
> didn't pull their weight (and I assume that he and Sam still do); we 
> found it essential to getting things done.
> 

I don't see these reviews as critical-path.  The working group
should keep working, and not block or change their activities
in any way while a review is pending.  As Brian's draft says,
once a review has come out, then there is a natural working group action:

> - 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.

This means that the review receives a written response to its points, on
the mailing list.  Discussion and working group consensus would determine
any next steps, as in normal comments.  This is different from late
evalation reviews.

The main reason for having the dispatcher is to be sure that broad
coverage is occurring.  If an -01 were to show up quickly before the
review showed up, then the review could be on the -01.  "Early" 
doesn't have to be a mathematically precise term.

Allison