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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 07 November 2019 00:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54705120105 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:43:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 027CfUNl6aGo for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A259120045 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r4so707247pfl.7 for <>; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:43:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WrjRN41v0nqibhPrTL7/eAtygOPFHFoZoBJPsrkpqC4=; b=YFP7EmTeGIECSmXYSqwjA+AIylSTCbmBAb0FD9rUN57L4CC4ljArXN32LrL1bjff2t +bywbwU2ix0odrQBby8cDobO4BMFZHJr873KIRaB2B9u2t3C5BtmfMEaz4ZbhYykHs2l Jl64qaOmCBa+YvE9LYa/uDX7eviXgd/bG/lSNNWBjYc1YcA7JBdWmd+4PwWwjwLd2N1/ qBO8XycoOcB7Tz/mbbiEE3maA2n/+nqAUeNKaxtEoJ9II1LQETZzi5as9AXNSBnkL2tq lqB4+OMBGDdO3eopKfAImoC05thgFVTa9Cf5YUBAksKVUzjJ3Gnvi4i5FdSjSQGtJ4EZ mudg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WrjRN41v0nqibhPrTL7/eAtygOPFHFoZoBJPsrkpqC4=; b=qbTaj973zZ60IE8Qgk7Hpa0mLe1Tl63tS40C1WcguK6x5TrY57eBsQXdSkw4co0KUP VEJ7MTn6Tt81pXIkQ9XkTuOp8yQhFRvPCq2cuGdhdsvF6T5wKWehWXOpkJ79TSXYJ0bD QqdYv+HsUetee9P97rSTureqVuQzgFLYUTGqHoKoj5MsgaCaozSQUwuT20+WhykJTFZU Ag/A6PvTv2YYAOhcdMYpdJo+O7TmxVfHba/gLYemWwoDulFQmu3wXANKGkVFbR7RXdK/ SF1Y6GGXAoFM1InuCjNqYqtCMcf3Gui7fYuWfF3ns/D0xU9C4f2xIKCSmppqML2L6ZwQ kPvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVnc9NsPa7KPQDUwDygQ8xK0Xe68aH7nfgt1zLYlsYdFtnHii9 RVrKGyLaPuhToLsLM4v/Y1Ew2jYU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwa+r0euG4rnmQL9rGg4vFozoNbCrA+o7RExPG6EYIWy1qGk+SQVt3Dcdk+vgP9p8eeIPWb0g==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:4e96:: with SMTP id c144mr258704pfb.45.1573087399712; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v14sm176368pfe.94.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
To: Keith Moore <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:43:17 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 00:43:22 -0000

On 07-Nov-19 12:01, 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.

But it doesn't scale, or so the ADs are telling us. And my thought
experiment wouldn't take ADs out of the loop; it would take them out
of the detailed review work.
> 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.

That's why the idea would be to make the WG chairs the *visible* approvers,
which IMHO would significantly change their incentives. I certainly agree
with the idea of naming the WG Chairs, the AD and the reviewers in the
published RFC: "Here are the people you should complain to: ..." just as
much as "Here are the people who share the glory: ...".