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

Bob Hinden <> Thu, 07 November 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480A6120113 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:43:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0fCpQ8oGXNwQ for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A17C61200B3 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p4so3785888wrm.8 for <>; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:43:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=PdxtmAeJQkTckvaVQQPfDPW9wB2k43nvUpCGoUmb+hc=; b=B4ECW7yiL0hTV5scrKKmw0tiBn93C6OHV+ZVNmfu9y1O5INdXtGMM9XY9lDGIrAFwX p3amfve9HhKwfZteYr+Dxv9PlSg35SUAL/PghUn/P/SYWFbdC8oxZSKX/dJizIAHCcuR yhfTVuYMCuA3U6xxaTlJtsRE0whgFSNt6L75D71fGosrAw2BA72lysVi7/GRVWg/3epQ dLk+8PshZkj03y0wyIvNHB3T5CL1SfNbFS6a+8UPwAdONWx21Ov4b+kJ9EAvCPi0PRep NU+ymQPIl5TucI2p593fKFWulMoG8leBNhDDM6LEhhvrUqQOLy0HYR1nyLHJ+11Iz8Cj EBng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=PdxtmAeJQkTckvaVQQPfDPW9wB2k43nvUpCGoUmb+hc=; b=QuFiyyvuDdgog3iDuPd8VKHeEodMN86WZbWaWUM0oZYCVN6/nZKGwI8CUyJR0BoWPF D8d1bhbfSYiLFppDJskasOCQjXU8FqiOvBhe9izuLJjnLgmKteIgCy4jTV25QbRT17hO gYHpAOy71GgkXz/DV6lAecImVM+0yw9PJ4O8g1hOgvmgD97DHy0tkjvlAtFlMrVW7hL4 oIdJX6cOEHdS8HYxJiGNYFhgB5rdDk7LqzCQUgnDK4c79nCQg/3IswGyrXKDx1xUo9at WYsDk802ev6s9Gu09JsX2oOjtAKzpT2SXZSXCa1JdX6c7sdtXrsPP9wjjev4xa00UYRj MPVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVkzH9dSrJvQB6TNg9dHoPz9tYr59silt2hkuPBIojWRtYdGok u0D7zteX7gDJoUDtEh8RY58=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzXrD7DjQWh193KAATXBWUJXHfY4lk/aBkKJx+lhdnjVFB4mjogyVv7ygq2hOgTCK7cjBPBuQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f192:: with SMTP id h18mr4043623wro.148.1573144984099; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:43:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:dcc8:ba76:7e6f:8cb9? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:dcc8:ba76:7e6f:8cb9]) by with ESMTPSA id w18sm2667908wrl.2.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:43:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B8D03CC-DD81-4C87-A033-E1F9C555F3FF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:42:59 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
To: Keith Moore <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:43:07 -0000


> On Nov 6, 2019, at 3:01 PM, Keith Moore <> wrote:
> On 11/6/19 5:54 PM, 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 .
> I don't think a typical WG chair is in a good position to review things from a broad perspective.   The ADs are in a MUCH better position to do that, precisely because they are exposed to everything that IETF does.   Also, the WG chairs are properly concerned with the specific perspective of their WGs; they know where the hard battles were fought.   Their WG needs them to be in a position to defend the WG's work.   To expect them to do both that and the broad review would put them in a conflicted position, and it's probably the broad review that would get shortchanged.

I suspect that for a lot of documents, broad cross area review beyond what Brian proposes is not necessary.   Not for all, but many things that working groups produce are very incremental.   We could have two tracks, one as Brian proposes, and another where the AD thinks more review is needed.

I suspect this would significantly reduce the load on the IESG and would not reduce quality.