> but to be blunt I'm far more worried about the extra work for authors.
> A conservative estimate is that this will triple the amount of effort
> needed to
> put together a pre-eval document. I'm already having trouble finding
> the time
> to do this work.
If you are referring to your recent IESG experiences with being a
document shepherd, I can tell you that different documents receive
different level of reviews.
That's not at all what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the effort involved
in putting the document together, not sheparding and other managerial duties.
Maybe other people view this differently, but when I'm working a document
that's going to appear as a formal publication in a document series for a wide
audience with my name attached, I spend a lot of time on word and organization
choices. I also spend a lot of time getting people to review it, reading and
addressing all review comments, and last but not least, working with the RFC
Editor during AUTH48 on editorial issues.
I'm doing none of this stuff in the MIME pre-eval I'm working on now. I don't
need to - the audience for the document is limited to those who care enough to
review it during the YAM process. I could not care less if the wording choices
are ideal, the organization is spot on, or anything else. The only purpose
these documents serve is as a means of communicating our intent to the very
limited audience of people interested in the YAM process. As long as it
accomplishes that goal, nothing else matters. Really, the amount of effort
involved here is more comparable to writing an email message reviewing
something than it is to constructing something intended for RFC publication.
Again, my estimate is that you're triping the amount of work I have to do on
the document. If the benefits to me are worth these added costs, I for one sure
am not seeing it.
The current IESG is way less picky with Informational documents.
And that's actually bad news from my perspective - less review from the IESG
means I have to pick up the slack and do even more review work myself.
I note in passing that aside from MIME, the informational RFCs I've written
have required the most effort.
In general, the current IESG is quite good with not nitpicking a
document to death if warned/asked in advance. I also haven't heard any
suggested changes to the pre-evaluation document of 5321bis, so I don't
think publishing them as RFCs would actually be much more work.
You might want to ask the authors of that document if they would be happy
having it published in its current form before making such assumptions.
Ned
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
