Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Tim Bray wrote:

>I was asked to review it.  My review was quite negative, challenging
>the notion that a URI was even appropriate for this space, and
>pointing out some fairly serious problems with the text.
>
Ok, I think there were some process failures on my side. I was keen to 
get this document finished before my AD term ends at the beginning of 
April, version -11 of the document was posted close to the IESG telechat 
date and I didn't follow up on your detailed comments. I did read your 
comments and from a quick look it seemed that most of your minor issues 
were addressed, while I didn't think your major issue were blocking 
publication. So my apologies for not communicating anything back to you.

I have replied to your original review and I hope you find my answers 
satisfactory.

Now, commenting on some specific issues:

>I'd have expected at least another draft.
>
I believe -11 was posted to address some of your concerns. My reading of 
changes in draft-merrick-jms-uri-11.txt is that editors addressed pretty 
much all your minor issues and nits. I apologize again for not replying 
to your major issues and not insisting that editors do, but I hope my 
replies in additional message explain why I thought that these issues 
are not worth blocking the document for.

Having said that, if you think some specific editorial changes can 
improve the document, I would be very interested to hear and apply them 
in AUTH48. If the changes are sufficiently major, I will ask IESG and 
the community to verify that they are acceptable.

>Today, the IESG announces that that
>draft, with one small change, is being published as an Informational
>RFC.
>
>So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given that this
>one produced no observable effects?
>
There was lack of acknowledgment of your review from my side, but in 
general I don't think I agree with your statement.

My understanding of how Apps Review Team should work is that it provides 
additional reviews and information to Applications AD (and the rest of 
IESG) about suitability of publications and quality of documents. This 
is similar to SecDir (Security Area reviews) and Gen-Art (General Area 
reviews). None of them are supposed to be treated more than general IETF 
LC comments, although in practice ADs of relevant areas are actually 
paying much more attention to them.

So, your review was treated as one input regarding the document. This 
document was also reviewed by the Designated Expert for URI 
registrations (Graham Klyne) and Mark Nottingham (another Apps Review 
Team review). While they clearly indicated that the document is not 
ready for PS, I got impression that they thought that the publication as 
Informational with Provisional URI registration is quite acceptable.

Best Regards,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address