Subject: Re: Document review

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:58:46 -0400

>  Date: 2005-05-09 09:48
>  From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
  
> Bruce,
> 
> Do you think it's OK for the IESG to kick a draft right back to
> the WG by saying
> 
>    "This is a mess and fundamentally wrong, but we don't have
>     time to tell you why, so you have to go find a reviewer." ?
> 
> This is a serious question... my concern is that this is a
> surefire way to annoy the whole WG (quite apart from the fact that
> it would indicate an enormous failure at an earlier stage).

No (I don't think that scenario is appropriate), and I would go
further and state that NO reviewer, IESG or otherwise, should
be quite so curt if the review is intended to be taken seriously.

So the form (now known as the IDIDRFCRFC, short for Indispensible,
Detailed Internet-Draft/RFC Reviewer's Flaw Checklist :-)) is
intended to be a reminder to reviewers of several issues that should
be checked, with pointers to references to which authors can be
pointed regarding specific issues.  As a reminder, it of course need
not actually be filled out and sent to an author or editor; but the
IESG ought to take the issues into consideration when reviewing
documents for publication as RFCs.  The items on the checklist are
not entirely random; several are based on issues that appear to
have been missed during review of some recent documents.

The latest version of the list is available via
http://users.erols.com/blilly/ididrfcrfc/index.html
Suggestions for additions are welcome.

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