Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 06 November 2019 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E003F120C6F for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:39:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5MAk1MasWLI0 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1284A1209DD for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F1C3897B for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:36:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF1914 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:39:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: ietf <>
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:39:15 -0500
Message-ID: <22770.1573054755@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:39:25 -0000

Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
    > But please do keep in mind that after having worked a couple of years
    > on a document, the WG might no longer see things that a fresh look will
    > uncover.  I think getting that fresh look is one of the great features
    > of the multi-step review process we have.  Also, there is the simple
    > fact of serendipity!  (Which is not very structured, and someone
    > schooled in quality processes will hate, but creating quality is not
    > really a controlled process anyway…)

1) We need these things to happen significantly before WGLC, and the WG has
   to not regard these things as hostile; this means that the review has to help.
   The reviewer has to then become involved in the changes that result.
   (This argues for the "stable document" statement, but I'd way prefer that
   we published stable-document as PS, using some lighter weight process,
   even if it winds up in a new series)

2) The AD for that directorate has to be involved such that the relevant AD
   does not just repeat the entire conversation.

3) We need the time from beginning the document process to the end of this to
   occur a bit faster as authors of a document simply get exhausted.  That
   probably argues for shorter documents.  It also argues for more hands to
   be involved, which might mean to me, lifting the 5 author limit.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-