Vijay, thanks for your review. John, thanks for your responses. I entered a DISCUSS ballot.
Alissa > On Aug 13, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear John: Thanks a lot for your response.. > > Please see inline. > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:53 PM John C Klensin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I really appreciate your making your way through the document > despite your lack of experience with what you refer to as the > arcana. > > My apologies; by employing the term "arcana", I did not intend to be > pejorative in any sense. > It is a good thing, in my opinion, that we in the IETF are comfortable > discussing such arcana > in the protocols that we create. > > That said ... > > Your review identifies a general problem with many IETF > "area" reviews. Using this document as an example, it, and its > companion, draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review, are essentially > just clarifying updates to he base IDNA document collection. A > review for substantive technical issues requires a thorough > understanding of those base documents in order to understand > what is being clarified or changed, and why, and what the state > of things was (and would continue to be) without the updates. > If you didn't follow that work and aren't interested and > motivated to dig deeply into it today, we can't expect you to do > that review and I (and I hope others), are very grateful for the > more general reviews you and others are doing. However, I think > the IETF (and the IESG in particular) needs to keep in mind that > the type of review you have done, while very important and > useful, is not a substitute for that more specific type of > in-depth technical reviews. We need both and it is not clear to > me that we are doing as good a job of the latter as we used to. > > ... I suspect that the IESG, in general, recognizes that the reviews done by > members of the > Gen-ART team are generalist in nature and not specific to the details that > are apparent to > the specific WG tasked with producing that I-D. > > The purview of the Gen-ART review is provided in [1], and my apologies if you > are already > familiar with the mission of Gen-ART. If not, the quoted text in [1] appears > to address your > concern that the IESG is aware that my review is definitely not a substitute > for an in-depth > technical review that can be provided by members of the WG. (On occasions > that as a > Gen-ART reviewer, I get an I-D that pertains to the work I do and the WGs I > participate > in, then I relish going deeper into the technical aspects as well.) > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/genart/about/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/genart/about/> > > Quoting the relevant parts from the above URL, "The GEN-ART reviews are > performed for one of > three reasons. Most Gen-ART reviews are now assigned at IETF Last Call > (answer #1). If > a document is revised after IETF Last Call, or is processed so quickly that > no > Gen-ART reviewer has been assigned, it's reviewed after being placed on the > IESG Telechat > agenda (answer #2). Some ADs also request an Early Review before IETF Last > Call - typically > once the document is considered fairly mature and stable within the working > group (answer #3). > > Gen-ART reviewers are supposed to provide generalist reviews to Gen-ART (when > reviewers are > experts in a particular field, they should provide expert review to the > working group, prior to > IETF Last Call), so reviewers may recuse themselves...." > > Cheers, > > - vijay > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
