On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: >> It gives the IESG an exemption to participating in WG and IESG last call >> processes, which then frustrates the rest of the community that does not >> have this opportunity. > > You could equally say that the IETF last call frustrates the WG process, > since a document can fail IETF last call, and this can be extremely > frustrating for working groups. Witness the fiasco in the MIF working group > when they tried to advance a DHCP route option, for example. IETF LC does not come with a list of constraints of what is in and not in scope. > The IETF last call process is important, but it's not a panacea. Too many > documents come through the last call process for each one to get thorough > review by every IETF participant. The IESG are effectively the sacrificial > lambs of the IETF who have to read every single document on the IETF track > that makes it through last call. If docs get out of WG LC with no review, then there's a failure of IETF process. Every such doc should be read at least by a few independent reviewers, by the WG chairs, and by the ADs in that area. The same failure can - and does - happen at the IESG level. We can continue to appoint groups with additional rounds of review, but IMO, they are scoped (and the IESG review guidance appears to back up that point). Joe
