On standards review panel and division of work

Hi,

Margaret's commentary on the standards review panel got me thinking of 
the same thing I had considered potentially problematic.

If I understood her concern correctly, the point was that in the 
standards review panel, the IESG would basically still continue 
reviewing the documents (at least to some degree) -- there seems to be 
an expectation that they should form an opinion on them (to be 
attached to the review request to be sent to the review panel).

When I read the document, my assumption was that the IESG could reduce 
the amount of review significantly, and possibly even remove it 
completely. There is indeed a danger that the present model could 
continue (compare also to the previous RFC-editor submission review, 
which wasn't supposed to be all that thorough in the first place!).

I do not think this is a show-stopper though; as many details in the 
proposal, things like these can be modified.  In this case, I believe 
the problem can be easily addressed by giving the ADs the power to 
initiate the review requests to the review panel -- and encouraging 
them to do so.

This would have several benefits:
  * if the expectation would be that drafts would be brought before
    the full IESG only in exceptional cases, the load and duplication
    of review would not increase significantly.

  * if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the IESG
    members to ensure the drafts have been sufficiently cross-area
    reviewed before requesting advancement (this is obviously also
    chairs' responsibility) -- ensuring earlier review.

  * again, if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the
    IESG members who have a personal interest to participate during the
    IETF last call (or even earlier) if they want to perform personal
    review.

  * it would remove the full IESG review and place it to the different
    equivalent body, the review body.

I don't see any disadvantages, except that if there hasn't been 
sufficient cross-area review before requesting the review panel to 
review, they might have to shuttle the documents back and forth more 
often.  This approach might also call for IETF-wide vetting of also 
WG-produces informational/experimental documents, if they would be 
reviewed by fewer people, but if this would be needed, it could be 
easily added later on and isn't worth considering at this point.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf