Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved
    >> them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.

    >> This could serve two purposes:
    >> - some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
    >> - encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting.

    > I think I like this idea, but also, speaking for myself I would refuse
    > to review a few more documents of things that are too far out of my
    > area of expertise (which might be a good or bad thing, depending on
    > whether anyone else steps up)

I think that this is certainly wise, but I also think that having reviews
From people who are completely cold is often good.  It depends; I've been
asked to review some extension to a TE-RSVP (for instance, probably got that
TLA wrong) document that basically just added two new attributes, and I can't
even comprehend the thing being extended, as it's an extension of something
else I don't know. I agree with you: there is little I can add other than
saying, "paragraph four seems awkward".
But that in itself has value, but it's not a useful review to the AD.

But there are other things you and I could come to cold, like (to use my
example above), that might be:
"An Architecture for doing Traffic Engineering with RSVP" where we might
actually be able to say, "Yes, I understood the problem, and I agree that the
solution seems to be in scale with the problem, and the security posture
seems appropriate"

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-