Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5749312006E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uBsz-Py5fMbD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from azure.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (azure.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB681120045 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:49:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AB26A12FF; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 01:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a99.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-85-194.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.85.194]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 602E66A12FA; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 01:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a99.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 01:48:59 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Dime-Print: 539847ca4ddd26cc_1573091339666_2846700390
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1573091339666:539043884
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1573091339666
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a99.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a99.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08DF80D9B; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:48:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=kJziLff3YwWeRI xR5uoG6JE8DSo=; b=ELBmFJghB6JNVc3RXy+vHA/TizEH/723hwfbGScLhaxit0 RixeyfpjH/PzBT3yXVf5D5wj8cuIpuQwD7SirzeZ5uZNVU4m0XpySNFh7ad5WiEn oQQTAMdSdo6vrxhmAcsGMOfwTYLRffNANg+mUAddqqVSWfJmF91i5NN4dSGpE=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a99.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D64E80D8C; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:48:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:48:49 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a99
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Message-ID: <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost>
References: <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2WaHaKUYDI5AjejJgY9eNPEq9Bk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 01:49:03 -0000

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:54:59AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Here's a thought experiment.
> 
> Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard
> RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review
> requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD .
> 
> Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them,
> in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically
> a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything
> right. And it scales.

So, no more IESG review?  What would we need the IESG for anymore?  It
would be gone, I guess?

Sure, it will scale better.  But quality will suffer.

> [...]. So the WG chairs and AD (typically a committee of three) [...]

Typically one of the ADs is uninvolved with a WG for which the other is
responsible, so that would be a committee of two, not three.

Nico
--