The IRSG review process is described in more detail at This page was reset on 2019-08-30, since the previous information was several years out of date.

IRSG Final Poll

Active polls:



The goal of the final IRSG poll is to determine if the draft is ready for publication as an RFC. Every IRSG member SHOULD vote on whether the document is ready. The possible votes are as follows:

  • Ready to publish -- requires a thorough read and reasonably detailed review
  • Not ready to publish -- requires a thorough read, reasonably detailed review, and actionable comments.
  • No objection -- I don't object if this document goes forward; I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great expertise in the area.
  • Request more time to review -- a commitment to provide a thorough review in a specified period of time.
  • Recuse -- due to conflict of interest (includes document authors, chairs of research group requesting publication, document shepherd, and others with a conflict of interest).

At least two IRSG members (besides the one sponsoring the document) need to vote 'ready to publish' for the document to move forward. Any vote of 'not ready to publish' will hold a document's progress until the comments are addressed. The IRTF chair may choose to override 'not ready to publish' holds that, in the opinion of the chair, have received an adequate response. Poll responses should be send to the IRSG mailing list.

IRSG Review

Active reviews:


Upcoming review order (this list was seeded randomly):

Reviewers are assigned by the IRTF Chair on a loose round-robin basis: If someone volunteers promptly to perform an IRSG review of a document, the review is assigned to that person and their name is moved to the bottom of the list. If no one volunteers to review a document, the next name from the top of the list is assigned. This IRTF chair is not on the review list, since it is expected that they will review each document before issuing the IRSG review request.

The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least one IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work forth must review the document and the RG's editorial process.

IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. An important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, assure the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring research group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient editorial and technical review has been conducted and the requirements of this process document, such as those described in IRTF-RFCs have been met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to related research literature have been made.

Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be sent to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. All IRSG review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not accept every comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to understand the comments and ensure that the RG considers them including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or RG. Reviews and their resolution should be entered into the tracker by the document shepherd.

The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be published.

IRTF Chair Review



The IRTF chair will review each draft submitted for publication prior to IRSG review.

Last modified 5 weeks ago Last modified on 16/12/21 23:51:38