Re: [Icar] Progress?

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

Dave-

Thanks for the input!

I want to push back a little to understand the thinking ....

> The significant point, however, is that having this become a de facto
> requirement is not part of defining or using the review process
> itself.  Making it effectively mandatory is outside of the critical
> path for initiating the review capability.
> 
> Rather, it develops as a requirement later, as the utility of early,
> wg-initiated reviews becomes evident. Hence it is the usefulness of
> the reviews that prompts working groups to get them done, rather than
> the imposition of an externally imposed and externally managed rule.

First, I think that we can seperate the "review function" from the
"process function" that might mandate/suggest/whatever the review
function, as you suggest.

But, I wonder if getting this all going is a chicken-and-egg thing.
I.e., if we don't invoke the review function as an explicit step in the
process will anyone do it?  It seems clear that if we could get folks to
start doing it then things may well snowball nicely (i.e., the community
would see that it was worthwhile).  But, in the absence of experience
that concretely shows that some sort of early review function is, in
fact, useful and worthwhile what is the incentive for a WG to invoke the
review function?

The other thing I wonder about is new-ish folk in the IETF.  People
bring ideas in that are not really baked, but they don't realize it (new
UDP-based app with no congestion control, no thoughts given to security,
etc.).  What is the incentive for these people to turn around and ask a
bunch of people they don't know to pick apart their work when they are
Obviously Correct?

SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things.  So, in the
absence of expicit direction how do we get some sort of review function
going?

Thanks!

allman


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