FYI, I started the same discussion on the secdir list. [1] I'll summarise to the IESG when appropriate.
S. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03968.html On 05/23/2013 11:28 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thanks again for all your hard work in doing the reviews. They make it > possible for me to concentrate on reviewing just those documents where there > are problems or I have deeper expertise. And the quality of the protocol > specifications coming out of the IETF is obviously very important, > particularly for protocols that are gaining significant use. > > As you may have seen, the IESG and the community has been wondering if > there'd be something that we could do about the IETF process, in the sense > that there's quite many things happening at the very end of the document's > life cycle. This results in some surprises, and often also moves some > important decisions out of the working group and to author/shepherd/AD hands. > A while ago we met for the IESG retreat and wanted to experiment with three > specific changes: > > - sending work back to the WGs when significant changes are needed, and > making the WG the central place of the edits > - moving some directorate reviews earlier, without impact reviewer effort too > much > - inviting some of the shepherds onto tele chats > > I am writing to you in order to discuss the second item. How big of a change > would it be to have Gen-ART reviews be invoked during WGLC, while the > documents are still in the working groups? The goal of the reviews would > still be the same, e.g., I would be checking that the reviews were positive > and/or that the issues brought up have been properly addressed. > > There are important details to consider, however, and I would like to get > your feedback on how you would seem them having an effect, and what would be > the best way to organise this, if we decide to go ahead with the change for > the Gen-ART. > > Triggering the review would have to be done by something else than IETF last > call announcement. Is the best approach is to have the WG chairs manually > request for this? Note that sometimes there are multiple WGLCs. I presume > that it would be preferable to have a Gen-ART review be done only once at > this stage, as otherwise the work load would increase. The chairs may have > some idea of whether they are likely to need another WGLC before they start > one. > > There may be possibly bigger changes and time lag between the first Gen-ART > review and the one that checks that the changes are ok. > > Some specs may not make it through WGLC, and a review at that stage may > increase the effort you guys are putting in, by reviewing those specs that > will fail. > > Jari > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
