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.


> -----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