*> *> 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. *>
This might work; worth some further careful thought. *> 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 Yes, that seems to be the implication. The doc should there MUST be a 3932 review, leaving it up to the RFC Editor as to when in the process it happens. That seems to cover all cases. *> 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 *> Sure, we have been fine-tuning this stuff since 1999, and I am sure we are not done yet! Bob _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
