Subject: [Icar] Re: Comments on draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:56:35 -0700

--On 30. april 2004 13:49 -0500 [email-masked] wrote:

>
> Comments on: draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt
>
> 1. Since the standardization process will require WG documents to be
>    now routed through the review team, it would be quite important to
>    ensure that there is the equivalent support (that the IESG gets
>    today from the secretariat) for the review team as well. But maybe
>    this is process detail that can be dealt with later.

Yes. it is also important that this support be consistent across teams, and 
be based as much as possible on reasonably automated processes, not people 
-otherwise we probably can't afford it.
>
> 2. The I-D is unclear about when the review team is actually involved
>    in doing the document reviews. It says late review. But just for
>    clarification does it imply post WG last call or IETF last call?

I was thinking post IETF Last Call, because Last Call comments should form 
part of the input to the review team, just as for the IESG today.
Other models are possible. Good point!
>
> 3. If there is consensus by the review team on a document, the IESG
>    role is quite limited isnt it? Does the IESG have to review the
>    document even after review team approval? Or does the IESG simply
>    review the "review team's" notes? From a process efficiency
>    perspective at least, there is no reason for the IESG to redo the
>    work done by the review team.

As I said in the Korea ICAR meeting, I would like to try to first create 
the function, then move the formal responsibility. In this case, it's 
likely (I hope) that IESG review could be limited to "writeup looks 
reasonable, we believe them".

                      Harald

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar