--On Wednesday, 24 January, 2007 09:34 -0800 Bob Braden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *> The part about "quick opinion" may be the issue
> *> here. What I suggested was that you send
> *> the _official_ RFC 3932 check request at that time.
> *> These are tracked, visible to all ADs, have a set
> *> deadline when they are handled in the telechat,
> *> etc.
> *>
> *> Jari
>
> Well, that would be a significant change in procedure, but if
> it works for the IESG, I guess it works for us. But... beware
> of getting what you ask for.
>
> Before 3932 was written and the IESG expected to make a serious
> judgment of technical contents of independent submissions, we
> used to submit them to the IESG for approval first. Then, the
> IESG quite correctly complained that they were sometimes given
> crappy documents to read, since the RFC Editor had not yet
> taken the passes with the author that we often go through
> before accepting a document.
>
> So, we revised the procedure, to move the IESG review to the
> end of the independent submission editorial review process.
> The RFC Editor does the high-level editorial review, gets
> detailed technical reviews, e.g from the Editorial Board, and
> makes a decision in favor of publishing BEFORE we bother the
> IESG with a 3932 review. Quite a few independent submissions
> never get to the IESG, as a result. If we follow your
> suggestion, sending them to the IESG at the beginning, we will
> be back at square 1.
>
> Maybe your suggestion is not such a good idea. Been there...
Bob,
Maybe there is a middle ground here. Maybe.
Even before you were submitting everything to the IESG before
internal review, the rule (which I think is still in 2026, but I
may have lost track of sequencing) was that the RFC Editor would
decide what documents needed to be reviewed by the IESG. After
a few episodes in which the IESG decided, post-publication, that
they would have preferred to see some documents that they
didn't, things shifted to "everything goes to the IESG".
Perhaps the middle ground would be to combine that original idea
with Jari's suggestion and the current procedure, leaving us
with:
* When a document comes in, the RFC Editor performs a
preliminary review and makes a determination as to
whether it seems likely that the IESG will have strong
opinions on the document.
* If "yes", then the document goes to the IESG, both as
a 3932 review and in the hope of eliciting comments from
the IESG (or ADs as individuals) that will make the
review and editing process more efficient.
* If no, then the sequence outlined in the I-D is
followed, i.e., RFC Editor review and at least some
editing first, then 3932 review by the IESG.
Or even better, the RFC Editor decides when, in the document
processing cycle, to initiate the RFC 3932 review: before the Ed
Board sees it, in the middle of Ed Board review if someone notes
that there is a relevant active WG that would probably need to
be involved, before or after [semi-]final editing, etc.
That might be more efficient from everyone's standpoint than
requiring either a "early" or "late" IESG review for every case.
And, of course, earlier rejection of documents that aren't going
anywhere free up resources for faster processing and editing of
documents that will be published.
With regard to the "independent" I-D, and noting that I'm
writing as an individual, not as Editor, it seems to me that
this dialog suggests that we should be making the document less
specific, rather than more specific, about steps to be followed
and the order in which they are applied. The right way to
resolve these issues, IMnvHO, is periodic discussion between the
RFC Editor and the IESG about whether the "what gets sent early"
bar is being set too high or too low and regular recalibration
of that filter. All we do by overspecifying that sort of
situation is to tie people's hands and prevent good things from
happening smoothly and efficiently.
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
