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

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Thu, 07 November 2019 05:34 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
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 D55EC1200FA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 21:34:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.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 MaNujPGm6EXO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 21:34:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DDC1200F3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 21:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id v8so783127ljh.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:34:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=WyaWJiACrsef/eEjzzw1SycCDMJmHAyDVSVg/VlA+no=; b=ynbOwOYkQV71sqYPlUzqbmm9GgcbNIU7aRfSlAg+C6vrsRgsmWJi4elFKFvUHRmwCr G6tLE1v+xZQ6z8nhNMlSHgxUPdilkvkLS6M8sZE0Miru2QXgqvTaGOV1HFi8vY8jYmog 0nZsiFcYhTdeUzaZYN8OnIu3QrxNw1tSrElgRPFidcV9LIYyzmJma/IxiYuCqQwyub/4 ugaTh3zaU/aEKgLPrX/v1BQyNgMIsnIKa8YsebFWFB9cqKQsdztcrVTK5jDjRXM4LoSy 3Ig//P1zRpdEk9gIijsqBUMPGTOjlyuzHThUiflunNlk158fFKnGiLOjGHV47YPCUbE1 Qa4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=WyaWJiACrsef/eEjzzw1SycCDMJmHAyDVSVg/VlA+no=; b=r8W4c9Iw+9yMK2p3naZnjvbjtpoV8RhyZ5I0UUQGHGBO2Cctlt2g49a4FS6G/2k+NG mJjhi2mX+7fo7Vnty5FrxWneXFO8UFUXMh+NfM+a6gwM+bhRN/XgczWsVPCxfl2+We1/ +bg0lUnxuCtbL4LK84YJRodAzr5I7oGQXvMxZxH7YDFRvCzcAM8UK4p8Y+i8ajAt8mx1 VIPu1r1HqQPMkuuenyqyJd7ioyYK262SAd8t0pmLt/kH2ygHooKeICQXMIjJCNLLMJr8 26bMUQnvNYYera+qzGRinqGfObMRPDB40mcT9gyLzdILO2HtpfIMKW+HVo5QfH91EAOe qCSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbtdEIp1mcujvj62jBhO4vXde8gOnucCqmaX5h83RLUURomVh4 ysf2p0w+z3b7GqDj8E331LAbJg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzo7swZbT3epn/PkKOWpYFlkX/6kF1iHvr/X5Z+CV4B63gZrkVpYCzz2NAMv9fQl95qSKTxcA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:28a:: with SMTP id b10mr790783ljo.193.1573104870769; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:34:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a00:801:427:ae20:808e:437c:815e:c70? ([2a00:801:427:ae20:808e:437c:815e:c70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l82sm562452lfd.81.2019.11.06.21.34.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:34:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 06:34:28 +0100
Message-Id: <563174A8-3961-476C-889D-A712EFD5DAEA@mnt.se>
References: <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A878)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7MjRi0YkHR7yxZzlLNOvlx17VXE>
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 05:34:35 -0000


Skickat från min iPhone

> 7 nov. 2019 kl. 02:49 skrev Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>;:
> 
> 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.
> 

Why do you think that would be the case?

>> [...]. 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
> -- 
>