IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 July 2019 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 743DE12010D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZWUWZafvjD3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0670E1200EF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D2E38196; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBF8B26; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Bill Fenner <fenner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
In-Reply-To: <20190705192656.GN3508@localhost>
References: <b18809df-ee98-fb29-b6c4-04ed579e163a@network-heretics.com> <20190704052335.GF3508@localhost> <CABcZeBOw6w2tm4YYFdmLwC23ufPDupt2D1Vzwjn4Pi9bbf6R-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190704192057.GI3508@localhost> <CABcZeBMC-VRfea3YqLSs6yhtEq4VtfdO5L56v87KH=vMR4y=+A@mail.gmail.com> <5c9048ef-ba2b-a362-3941-82eacc664b64@mnt.se> <CABcZeBPv8xUMbSt+SDL_X56SBB_CPyBMKZaQMbPd=6M-xT+hpQ@mail.gmail.com> <19233.1562339969@localhost> <20190705163101.GJ3508@localhost> <8409.1562353834@localhost> <20190705192656.GN3508@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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 16:12:58 -0400
Message-ID: <22745.1562357578@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jN0MsEG8fF7gdxBj2AeIV26S9Do>
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 20:13:03 -0000

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
    >> Actually we are pretty good about getting early reviews from, for instance,
    >> sec-dir.  Chairs ask, and they happen, and I think that this has been good.
    >> We also get food feedback from IANA, and we can get it early as well.

    > I didn't know IANA could be asked to review early...

    > I know we sometimes do early reviews in sec-dir, but not necessarily
    > often enough?

It varies greatly, but I think that the sec-dir reviews are occuring much
earlier on average.  Maybe Tero has some stats, but my guess is that more
than 50% of documents get a sec-dir review before WGLC.

    >> The problem is getting the majority of the IESG to put credence in these
    >> reviews is part where I think we lose time.

    > Interesting.  Well, maybe that should change.  How much de-novo review
    > does IESG do?  Do most ADs fully read and review every I-D that comes
    > up, or do they mostly rely on the review record from the shepherd and
    > directorates?

Sponsoring ADs seem to fully read.  I'd just like them to do so during WGLC,
I think.  Many times sponsoring ADs will know what other cross-area review
would be useful because they know what's going on elsewhere.

I think that other ADs are relying more and more on shepherd write-ups, and
are more and more splitting the load among the ADs (trusting each other).
But, we do see many documents that still get pretty heavy editing during IESG
Discuss.  This is often seriously dis-heartening to document authors, who
often have done a marathon of edits for WGLC two months earlier.
The time between beginning WGLC and exiting IESG is around 6 months is my
guess.

I think it was Bill Fenner that had a way to get stats?
I don't know if they are continuously captured, and if so, where.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email