All of this depends on the quality of the review and how it's followed
up on. Having to push back on insistent nonsense is a problem. A good
review that engenders a lot of discussion on substantial issues is very
worthwhile. We should foster those -- they are important. This is no
Thomas Narten wrote:
IMO, one of the biggest causes of problems (and most under-appreciated
process weakness) in the IETF (and any consensus based organization
for that matter) is poor handling of review comments.
Whereas all of my own experiences with groups having problematic handling of
--On Sunday, March 09, 2008 22:45:33 -0400 Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This particular ION had a life as an internet-draft with an intent to
publish it as an RFC before the ION series existed. It was draft-iesg at
one time, and no one came up with a draft-ietfer- counter
At 9:18 PM -0700 3/9/08, Russ Housley wrote:
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Ted:
I think you completely misunderstand my point. A reviewer can make a
comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree. This is
important for an AD to see. The AD now needs to figure out whether
the reviewer is in the rough part of the rough consensus or whether
the reviewer
Ted:
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please resolve these comments
Speaking only as a Gen-ART reviewer, what Russ said is how I think it works,
and Ted's concern that I might be privileged as a Gen-ART reviewer at last
call time is the reason we're having that conversation.
Gen-ART reviewers have had that concern since we were writing reviews for
Harald. We
It is my experience as well that Gen-ART or other organized reviews are
not given any more weight than other Last Call comments. However, I at
least weight different comments in different ways, based on whether I
agree with the issue, whether I believe the issue is a major problem or
a minor nit,
On 2008-03-11 03:42, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted:
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
On Mar 9, 2008, at 10:56 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
I think you and Tim (and potentially other ADs in areas that have
review
teams) are missing an opportunity here. Over time, these review
teams
have been grown to the point where they do their reviews at Last Call
or before. That's a very
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
Dave How?
You can update an IESG statement mor easily than a BCP. As you find
areas where the text is unclear and you have to interpret
Lakshminath:
It's a fair thing to say that the ADs need to see a response. I
also agree that cross-area review is important and at times unearths
issues that may not have been raised in WG-level
reviews. Personally, I prefer cross-area reviews to take place
prior to the LC process and hope
Lakshimnath,
On 2008-03-08 21:12, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
Reviewers are not accountable for delays.
Well, at least for Gen-ART there is a deadline:
the end of Last Call for LC reviews, and a day or
so before the telechat for pre-IESG reviews.
Obviously, reviewers are human and sometimes
John,
On 2008-03-09 05:56, John C Klensin wrote:
I definitely do not want to see a discussion between authors and
reviewers --especially Area-selected reviewers-- during Last
Call. It too easily deteriorates into a satisfy him
situation, and those reviewers are not anything special (or,
At 6:38 AM -0700 3/9/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
Dave How?
You can update an IESG statement mor easily than a BCP. As you find
areas where
At 1:42 PM -0800 3/8/08, Russ Housley wrote:
I think you completely misunderstand my point. A reviewer can make a
comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree. This is
important for an AD to see. The AD now needs to figure out whether
the reviewer is in the rough part of the rough
On 3/9/2008 1:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lakshimnath,
On 2008-03-08 21:12, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
Reviewers are not accountable for delays.
Well, at least for Gen-ART there is a deadline:
the end of Last Call for LC reviews, and a day or
so before the telechat for pre-IESG
Spencer,
On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
(stuff deleted)
So, for example, it probably IS worth finding out if the rest of
the ADs who sponsor reviewing bodies
As an AD who sponsors a reviewing body (the Security Directorate), I
guess it is my
turn to step into the
On 3/7/2008 11:18 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was
On 3/7/2008 10:56 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Lakshminath:
So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
one of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review
--On Saturday, 08 March, 2008 00:12 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ideal way to deal with them is to always respond, and to
get an I am satisfied with your response to close the
thread.
Ideal being the keyword though. Not everyone, for any
number of reasons,
Wow. This was an interesting thread (that developed quickly). Why aren't you
guys all on airplanes yet?
So, to summarize a couple of points that other people made, but I didn't
want to lose in the forest...
... DISCUSS has no BCP process standing today. I'm not sure that giving it
process
On Mar 6, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
It was later that I suggested someone else
hold the discuss, because I thought Cullen would want to recuse,
since he is a patent author on a patent his company has filed
related to
this document.
This is a reasonable action given the conflict
Lakshminath:
So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
one of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review was ignored. Like any other Last Call
comment, it
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was expecting answers
all those times. I am pretty
@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IONs discuss criteria
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during
Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am
Ted,
Firstly, it's not for me to prejudge the IESG's conclusions
about IONs, but I would suggest that any ION issued by the
IESG implicitly carries the same status as any other IESG
statement, unless rescinded, so I don't quite share your concern.
However, the deeper question is whether the
At 12:42 PM -0800 3/6/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
Firstly, it's not for me to prejudge the IESG's conclusions
about IONs, but I would suggest that any ION issued by the
IESG implicitly carries the same status as any other IESG
statement, unless rescinded, so I don't quite share your
Ted,
Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the same
boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the parameters
of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official status of this
document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end result is of
several
Ted:
The call for comments has resulted in some input, and the IESG plans
to discuss that input at our meeting on Sunday. In fact there is
also an experiment on mail list suspension that we will be discussing
as well. The two experiments are listed on the web page:
Cullen == Cullen Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cullen Ted,
Cullen Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the
same
Cullen boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the
parameters
Cullen of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the
Ted:
Not oall of the IONs were approved for posting by the IESG. There
is one from the IAOC, for example. That was the point of figure out
what to do.
Russ
At 04:01 PM 3/6/2008, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 12:42 PM -0800 3/6/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
Firstly, it's not for me to
--On Thursday, 06 March, 2008 12:01 -0800 Ted Hardie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status
as an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG
DISCUSSes are a very serious part of our process at this
point. Having a community agreed
At 12:52 PM -0800 3/6/08, Russ Housley wrote:
Once this discussion is over, the future of IONs should be clear, and
I will share with the whole IETF community the outcome of the experiment.
Russ,
Whatever the fate of IONs in general, it is clear to me that
this document does not belong
Cullen,
Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
language is poor (they are both probably true), but could you explain
how one of
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted I respect your work, but I believe the IESG has recently
Ted relaxed the vigilance it once held toward adherence to these criteria.
Ted I have seen at least two recent discusses that amounted to
Ted go satisfy that guy and several
At Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:35:04 -0800,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Cullen,
Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
language is
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Cullen,
Lakshminath Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure
your
Lakshminath DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria
ION. I
Lakshminath appreciate it. Perhaps I am
Sam,
I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I also don't
understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially (in
reference to your point about Cullen holding his DISCUSS beyond
resolution of Russ's).
I have seen better examples where for instance your DISCUSS
Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly
fluffy comments
Thanks for the clarification Cullen. I appreciate it. Speaking from
the view point of someone on the other side, more often than not, a
detailed DISCUSS is much more helpful.
Thank you again.
best wishes,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 2:23 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Part of the reason I
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Sam,
Lakshminath I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I
also don't
Lakshminath understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially
(in
Lakshminath reference to your point
On 3/6/08 at 4:24 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. If people believe that this document should be processed as a
BCP, thereby presumably constraining long-term IESG behavior and
adding to our procedural core, should it be added to the PUFI agenda
for preliminary discussion?
The PUFI BOF
At 2:23 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as,
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion now
that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say that this thread
is but one example that we often don't clearly understand each other's
positions.
You interpret Cullen's DISCUSS as : I think it's reasonable
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted Speaking again as someone who thinks this is general problem, the
Ted issue I am raising is not that there are bad discusses. The issue I
Ted am raising is that the document which describes what discusses
Ted are or should be has
At 1:43 PM -0800 3/6/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria document from another
IESG member very seriously. I would treat such a request from an
author seriously, although not as seriously as from
John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. If people believe that this document should be processed
as a BCP, thereby presumably constraining long-term IESG
behavior and adding to our procedural core, should it be added
to the PUFI agenda for preliminary discussion?
Yes.
A series of postings by sitting
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted At 1:43 PM -0800 3/6/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria document from another
IESG member very seriously. I would treat
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when to disregard should being
very precise. What I
Ted, Lakshminath, and the Rest of the IETF Community:
I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game.
The handling of reviews by non-IESG members seems to be an important
part of this discussion. So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with
Gen-ART Reviews. Other General ADs may have done
Hi Russ,
Thanks for your response. Some notes inline:
On 3/6/2008 4:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted, Lakshminath, and the Rest of the IETF Community:
I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game.
The handling of reviews by non-IESG members seems to be an important
part of
I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I
have removed my discuss.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion
now that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say that
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
Thanks Cullen.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 5:05 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I
have removed my discuss.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular
The part of the discuss on lost that I have problems with as a discuss
was text that said:
Ted and I have discussed this and he is going to propose some
clarifying text before I try to evaluate this.
I put that in before the IESG call where this document was on the
Agenda - This was put
On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make
On Mar 6, 2008, at Mar 6, 2008,8:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34,
At 5:48 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I put that in before the IESG call where this document was on the
Agenda - This was put in as the document editor, Ted in this case, had
asked me not to put in a discuss until we tried to figure out a way to
resolve this that did it without opening
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not
better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when to disregard should being
very precise.
On 2008-03-07 16:10, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when to disregard should
63 matches
Mail list logo
