On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can >> say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and >> sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review >> by the IESG does serve a purpose. > > I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm saying that I know of drafts > that have been nearly rewritten during such back-and-forth, so what popped > out was largely unrelated to what went in. In such cases, I think the > document should have been returned to the working group with comments, not > worked on privately.
I agree. That should be standard operating procedure. Brian
