In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ned Freed writes:
>> From where I sat, the problem was trying to ensure that a WG thought
>> about an issue. Neither mandatory material nor checkoff boxes
>> accomplish that, but I think the former is often more useful because
>> material in an I-D is visible to the entire WG.
>
>I disagree completely and think you have this exactly backwards. Mandatory
>material would only help if people actually think about what goes in it - whic
>h
>they don't. Rather, they think about it as "another something we have to do to
>get past the IESG" and deal with it by spending as little time on it as
>possible.
Sure -- I saw a lot of that when I was on the IESG. Too often, I would
say "in your Security Considerations section, you need to think about
X, Y, and Z" -- and I'd get back a new document saying "think about X,
Y, and Z".
>Even worse, the presence of a section that says "these are all the IANA
>considerations" or "there are no IANA considerations here" is likely to cause
>reviewers to assume that someone has already checked for IANA actions. This
>will lead to more omissions, not less.
>
>And in fact there has already been at least one example of this happening. The
>document draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-04.txt is now in the RFC Editor's
>queue. It's IANA considerations section says "no IANA actions". Alas, the
>document defines any number of new header fields that need to be placed in the
>appropriate header regsitry.
>
>That IANA considerations section sure helped a lot, didn't it?
You can lead a horse to water....
I agree -- there are no panaceas here. It's a question of what will
help the most, not what will solve the problem.
>
>Like it or not, careful reviews and review checklists, while quited flawed in
>their own right, are the best tool we have. When I was on the IESG I had my own
>private review checklist; it was the only thing I found that worked.
Such reviews are certainly necessary. The question is this: what
policy is most likely to reduce the incidence of such things? We'll
never eliminate it.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
