Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

> FWIW, I read almost all Brian's comments as "somebody besides ADs and
> WG chairs needs to be worried about getting review that is wide enough
> and early enough, and document authors/editors are the obvious
> stuckees". I agree.
> 
> It's pretty tempting to slap out a proposal that assumes that the
> management structure needs to do something, but we'd be better off if
> everyone contributed. I know it's hard to step back, but I'd ask
> people to try to think about ICAR as a community responsibility, and
> not just another thing for ADs and WG chairs to worry about.

I have not made up my mind about this yet.  But, if I could play the
devil's advocate for a moment, I'd wonder .... The review team is only
so big.  And, the community produces *a lot* of documents.  So, in some
sense if the request has to come from a WG chair then that is a first
gate to making sure the document being reviewed is something the IETF
potentially cares about.  We want to get very early input and so the bar
for the WG chair to request review would be low (i.e., "this looks like
something the WG might take up", not "the WG just took this doc up").
But, might that be better than allowing just anyone to throw anything to
the review team?

Or, is the review team DDoS attack just me looking for problems to
solve?

allman


--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/