specific problem: standards document quality review
Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
dromasca at avaya.com
Tue Feb 4 21:53:53 CET 2003
There seem to be two problems here. One is the volunteer participation, and the reduced number of volunteers nowadays. The other is the lack of a more formal list of review criteria. There is a lot of shared knowledge around, but some formalization may help here. The MIB reviewers team is going through such an exercise (issuing a MIB reviewers guidelines) right now.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Guttman [mailto:Erik.Guttman at sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:36 PM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Cc: Erik Guttman
> Subject: specific problem: standards document quality review
>
>
>
> This topic has been discussed to some extent, but I request that it be
> added explicitely to our WG list of open problems.
>
> There are a growing number of expectations on internet drafts that are
> passsed to the IESG for review. Many review procedures should be done
> (completed) by working groups before forwarding documents on for
> advancement. In the end the IESG is stuck checking documents for
> * clarity, spelling, English grammar
> * does the document have a security analysis at all
> * if the document passes human readable strings, does it comply
> with IESG internationalization guidelines, RFC 2277
> * does the document have an IANA considerations section and
> if so, does it comply with RFC 2434
> * does the document separate normative and informative references
> * references (are they correct?)
> * document format issues (RFC 2223)
> * terminology (RFC 2119)
> This is not a complete list.
>
> I suggest that it is a problem that we are relying on volunteer
> participation for a basic editorial function. We do not get enough
> volunteer effort in this regard, and it is something it is not
> acceptable to expect the IESG to perform. It is too time consuming.
>
> We do not have to gripe about this. There are ways to solve this
> problem (assuming we can agree that it is one). These examples
> are meant to illustrate that the problem *can be solved* by means
> other than berating editors and WG chairs, not to initiate a debate on
> solutions at this point.
>
> - WGs can be required to get volunteers for doing this review
> in order to stay chartered
>
> - The IETF can *hire* a qualified technical writer to perform
> this function (working through 200 pages of internet-drafts per
> week, say). Funding? slightly increased conference fees, if
> money is tight.
>
> EXAMPLE: ETSI support includes an effective & competent editorial
> review and coordination staff. The editors provide reliable and
> consistent service to the technical bodies they are assigned to.
> (see www.etsi.org)
>
> Erik
>
>
>
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list