Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 06 November 2019 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A911208DF for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:33:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W0qmgyy8-uwM for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:33:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7B3120128 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:33:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217673818F; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:30:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEE714; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:33:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Paul Wouters <>
cc: "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <>, ietf <>
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:33:50 -0500
Message-ID: <21563.1573054430@localhost>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:33:53 -0000

Paul Wouters <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-