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

Bert,

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> Brian writes/comments:
> >
> > I realise this is an oldish version but I do have a few comments...
> >
> > >  2.1 Overview
> > >
> > >    Briefly, the cross-functional review process may be described as fol-
> > >    lows.
> > >
> > >    Each area has an area review team (ART) which ADs delegate the
> > >    interim document review function to. When necessary (early in the
> > >    process, or during the WG Last call, or both), the WG chairs request
> > >    the review for a document by sending an e-mail to all required ARTs
> > >    (at a minimum the ART of the area the WG belongs to).
> >
> > I don't see why it has to be the WG chairs, in the case of early review.
> > As soon as a document is in serious discussion, I think the authors should
> > be able to request a review. We should be strongly encouraging early review.
> >
> By letting the WG chairs ask for it, it would (I hope) be clear that it is
> a document under consideration by a WG.
> 
> > If it is a review required as part of a last call process, it's fine that
> > the WG chairs request it - but that is already too late for the first
> > cross-area review.
> >
> > The other advantage of allowing authors to request review is that it
> > provides a path for early review of independent submissions. That is
> > a hole in the draft.
> >
> I would appreciate cross-area review of all documents.
> But if we could get to the point FIRST to have all WG produced documents
> to get more and better (and earlier) cross-area review, then we would
> have gained a lot. Once we do better in that space I would start to
> worry more about independent submissions.

Tactically, I agree. But I would like to get the review of independent
submissions in the strategy, as a Phase 2 or Phase 3 feature. That only
needs minor changes to the draft.

    Brian

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