Re: [Icar] Re: Comments on draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 30. april 2004 13:49 -0500 Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>>
...
>> 2. The I-D is unclear about when the review team is actually involved
>>    in doing the document reviews. It says late review. But just for
>>    clarification does it imply post WG last call or IETF last call?
> 
> 
> I was thinking post IETF Last Call, because Last Call comments should 
> form part of the input to the review team, just as for the IESG today.
> Other models are possible. Good point!

And this is a problem in the split model we seem to be evolving,
with some mid-review done by WG-based teams and this very late review
done by cross-area teams.

IMHO cross-area review should be a continuous process, starting at the
draft-authorname-...-00.txt version and continuing until the
draft-ietf-...-99.txt version. The arguments for that opinion
are in the SIRs draft.

We still need to get rid of late surprises.

    Brian

> 
>>
>> 3. If there is consensus by the review team on a document, the IESG
>>    role is quite limited isnt it? Does the IESG have to review the
>>    document even after review team approval? Or does the IESG simply
>>    review the "review team's" notes? From a process efficiency
>>    perspective at least, there is no reason for the IESG to redo the
>>    work done by the review team.
> 
> 
> As I said in the Korea ICAR meeting, I would like to try to first create 
> the function, then move the formal responsibility. In this case, it's 
> likely (I hope) that IESG review could be limited to "writeup looks 
> reasonable, we believe them".
> 
>                      Harald
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icar mailing list
> Icar@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
> 

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