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

Keith Moore <> Wed, 06 November 2019 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B79F1201CE for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:01:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=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 eRS6fHOXNM4U for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:01:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F6E7120052 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:01:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824EB3FE; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:01:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:01:10 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=ZqQfaMn54Czm2/1dWY0KYJmm+r2VU1JoYAmqOGgLa ak=; b=a6vF+nsZoPF6/CpwiRbmIys+z8aSZ2NPMqjToBIaOZ8/pj84tNJ0tPRgI BMKIVc0i/lRkF9LJyBxmMVDOYIk5QKu/t86jvCtZlSxwoH0sIOZzwDTb7esDMZ5/ l06RfSZ3KBQYCtjJwTRNc1J+O29GjKLhyhPbRN3oYG/o18PCH/4YkZmh73uxXybn J/GunyBDn3CbuLjFF9bU4l9j9PEnD5FYklcBnGnpZy9eLi6vD7CcLLrCJTAHTjbP A2UpMZ43jCGB6fOxHzVhwaDlyPCFwmhNPRkjyyQrmgzV+aDonw1UbA2fl48vpeiZ GOWcXoKFHHjYbmhsQk0dxK02dmypA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:tVDDXa2iNGzWbk-1-6im7k-T8_-DSD1CzboYMBqsebye2Zp3b1GAmA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddukedgtdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:tVDDXZ3bcfhUXb74HQgJZzhpSGlrYqaD9P4r25meSNre3c-LMB0u_g> <xmx:tVDDXSdap3Zg1f8jk8yoNn-JJ-2mz5MmrfpCL28ylFvTgpMz6KV61w> <xmx:tVDDXUfHmKFVjeNlyEqgroeJNsl-zfQsPkf2GoMfgDsqx00IkERFOg> <xmx:tlDDXXjCnYkD7WVGb4f-E98-PyNIWar4NkGQch-yxNrTvZwqq3bdHQ>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B4C063060064; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:01:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:01:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 23:01:13 -0000

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.   
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.