Quality results (Re: General comment)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On mandag, mars 03, 2003 18:19:54 -0800 Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> 
wrote:

> Here's how I see it:
> Documents are a long time in production.  By the time they reach the
> IESG there's a lot of inertia behind them, especially if they've
> already been implemented by a fair chunk of people. This fact,
> combined with the fact that the IESG only has a limited amount of
> time, makes it difficult for the IESG to either say "no, we're not
> taking this" or to do real major surgery.
>
> Now, it's true that the IESG does this occasionally, but there are
> also a lot of documents that make it out of IESG review which could be
> a lot better.

Erik,

here's where I want to do my terribly unfair thing to you, too, and 
challenge you to come up with specifics:

please name three documents that have come out of IESG review recently that 
you think could have been a lot better, and the points at which they could 
have been made better.

(The IPv6 addressing architecture's already been publicly commented on by 
the IAB, so that's one, I suppose - I'd like to see a few more examples.)

The reason is, as usual, that I think the decision to pass documents is a 
tradeoff, with arguments on both sides (and I believe the IESG counts the 
"quality" argument *heavily* in those discussions) - I'd like to have a few 
specific examples, so that we can get on the table the arguments on the 
other side.

                    Harald