Draft:  draft-alvestrand-ipod-01.txt
Reviewer: Black_David@emc.com
Review Date: Friday 6/2/2006 10:05 PM
IETF LC Date: 6/15/2006

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
described in the review.

This reviewer concurs with the rationale in Section 5
of the draft, and agrees that something like IONs are needed.

One should normally give RFC 3933 process experiments a
fair degree of latitude, but this draft is a significant
stretch of what was envisioned in RFC 3933, even if the
general idea and intent are good.  The sheer breadth of
what the ION experiment would allow is impressive:
- The list of ION approvers and the scope of what they
	can approve is unlimited.
- The process by which an ION is approved is unspecified
	- the draft just says that approval is required.  For
	example, there is no discussion of Last Call of any
	form, even for significant process changes.
- The format of IONs is unspecified.
All of the above would doubtless be addressed by IONs, but
that circular dependency is a serious stretch of RFC 3933's
expectation that the IESG approves specific process 
change experiments - approval of this draft would provide
a framework for arbitrary IETF entities to run arbitrary
process experiments.  At least the above three aspects of
IONs should be much more tightly specified.

IONs and ION drafts intend to move from a version numbering
scheme to a date-based versioning scheme.  Particularly for
Draft IONs, this will come as a surprise to the community.
Using a version number in addition to dates would be a
very good idea for Draft and Approved IONs.

The draft name is clever ;-).