Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Jared Mauch <> Wed, 06 November 2019 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D8B120144 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:49:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nYybYUgOwDX9 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0959412012A for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6C765400F5; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:49:03 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
From: Jared Mauch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:49:03 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <>
To: Keith Moore <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
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 17:49:09 -0000

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Keith Moore <> wrote:
> On 11/6/19 6:03 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> We shouldn't be depending on last-minute quality checks to maintain the quality of our output.  Working groups should be producing documents that are ready to publish, and develop trust that their documents are high quality.
> As long as working groups are as siloed as they are, this is unlikely any WG that affects interests that are outside of its narrow scope.   And it's very dangerous to assume that WGs are competent to produce high quality work in isolation at least with our current processes.   Though I'd certainly be in favor of some kind of explicit extra-WG review earlier in a WG's or document's lifespan.

I have to agree here.  There’s things that happen where some better cross-area would be useful, but we also face the fact that with a growing community it’s not possible to have all the implications in mind.  A subtle change in one area with one protocol or how that transport happens may have ops impact for the protocol.

A great example is that the large providers are often well represented but people who are still building services themselves just end up dealing with the changes vs having the bandwidth to participate with people whose full time job it is to e-mail the lists.

The subject line of this is also possibly quite problematic as it may be about one or more ADs today or just an abstract problem.  We should be cautious to not have this turn into painting the aircraft carriers bike shed while it turns lest we go overboard. :-)

- Jared