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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

>  2.3 Area Review Teams
...
>    Selection of the ART members is done personally by the ADs. Possible
>    variations, however, may include open call for nominations, followed
>    up by ADs interviewing the candidates and personally approving them.

This does not follow from assumption 2 in section 2.2. On the contrary, if
the objective is to maintain trust in the ADs --or more accurately, to extend
that trust to the ART-- there must be some degree of community process in
creating the team. I think an open call should be obligatory, and an open
call for confidential comments. After that, it's OK for the AD to decide.

>    When a document needs to be reviewed by ART, the AD assigns two ART
>    members as "token holders". All ART members are encouraged to review
>    the document, however, the token holders are held responsible for
>    providing comments within a 2-week time frame and following up on
>    them with the document authors and/or the hosting WG. 

2 weeks is really very tough if we are talking about deep review of
serious specs. I wouldn't like to be asked to review NFSv4 in 2 weeks.

> 2.5 Role of Cross-Area Review within the Standards Process
...
>           Note that ADs are given a tool they can use to off-load docu-
>           ment review to the extent they believe is necessary, but they
>           are not required to do so. It is then left to the ADs to make
>           sure they are using this tool appropriately and sufficiently.

I can't quarrel with these words, but somehow they don't get the point
that *early* cross area review, before the document gets anywhere near
an AD, should significantly increase document quality and reduce the
need for detailed review at the end of the process.

> 
>  2.6 Initiation of Review Process
> 
>    The cross-functional review process can be initiated either by an AD
>    or by a WG chair after consultation with the ADs.

As noted above, I believe that authors should be *encouraged* to initiate
early review themselves. Don't put the load at the end of the process - put
it as early as possible.

>    The review process may be initiated at an early stage of a document
>    (e.g. when the WG is starting to consider an approach) to ensure
>    architectural validity and correctness of the general direction

This should be "should" IMHO.

>    The same process may be used by the ADs and the RFC-Editor to request
>    cross-functional review for individual submissions they are shepherd-
>    ing or checking for conflicts.

This should be a separate section with its own headline, and should be 
a "should" IMHO. I would be very concerned to see a duplication of review
teams for independent submissions.

   Brian



_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar