Hi Robert, Thanks for your quick response. Your explanations sound good.
On 09/02/2015 10:52 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> * Section 2 >> >> Not sure what the "draft's primary email alias" refers to. Is this the >> [email protected] or [email protected]? In either case it may make >> sense to clarify. > We could (and it would be easy), but why? This is an informational > section to capture background. As it notes at the beginning it is "not > intended to be comprehensive documentation of how review teams operate." > I don't think adding the detail will help whoever is implementing to the > requirements in this document. Right, but the phrase "draft's primary email alias" does not mean much without further clarification. I was not looking to add the email alias verbatim to the text but to provide a better description of what "the primary alias" means. Since this is just descriptive text I guess it is OK to leave it as ia. > >> >> * Section 3.3 >> >> "A reviewer must be able to configure the tool to remind them when >> actions are due." >> >> It would be nice if the tool would allow the reviewer to set an >> individually customizable lead time here. e.g. Remind 2 days before the >> LC is due or 3 days before the Telechat. > Yes, but rather than try to get it done as part of this project, I > think this would be a good feature to add during a codesprint once the > base tool is available. Would that work for you? Great. That works for me. >> >> * Not sure if this should be in Section 3.2 or 3.3 but it would be nice >> of the deadlines for review would automatically be changed when the >> document is rescheduled to another telechat and the secretary and >> reviewer are simply notified. > Agreed. I think, again, this is a feature we can add at a codesprint - > defers are really unusual. OK. > >> >> * Section 3.4 >> >> Shouldn't it be possible for the review requester (e.g. an AD) to set an >> earlier deadline manually for one or more reviews (e.g. due to >> travel/vacation)? > That's intended already, and the suggested models support that. > We can add a requirement making it even more explicit, but fwiw, this is > something that wouldn't get missed as the tool got developed even if we > didn't. OK. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
