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

Mark,

Mark Allman wrote:
> 
> > 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?

The i-d-announce list is the DDoS attack today. Targetted requests for
early review might actually reduce that effect. But there is a risk, which
is why I would ideally want to see some Web tooling for requesting reviews,
able to respond "No, Brian already has 17 drafts in his review queue, try
Mark instead."

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar