Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 5/10/2011 2:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/10/11 8:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> Your note suggests that, at the least, the text of a Last Call should make
>> much more clear what sorts of comments are being sought (and why and
>> probably from whom.)  The community should not have to guess what sorts of
>> responses are useful for the IESG.
>
> FWIW, over in the XMPP Standards Foundation (xmpp.org) we ask the following
> questions in each of our Last Call announcements:


It has the considerable benefit of guiding the respondent to provide pragmatic
detail.

The IETF would do well to include some form of similar guidance in its Last Call
announcement.


n 5/10/2011 6:15 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> #    Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and #
>>> send your feedback to the [e-mail] discussion list: # #    1.
>>> Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP #       protocol
>>> stack or to clarify an existing protocol? #    2. Does the specification
>>> solve the problem stated in the #       introduction and requirements? #
>>> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? #       If
>>> not, why not? #    4. Do you have any security concerns related to this
>>> specification? #    5. Is the specification accurate and clearly
>>> written?
>>>
>>> Whether that's the right set of questions is another issue...
>>
>> This, and especially that last one, makes it sound like a PROTO write-up.
>> Are you sure you want that from a potentially huge list of people?
>
> Interesting: I think the last question is the *most* important, and the one
> that *least* seems like it came out of a PROTO write-up.  Yes, that's the
> question I *do* most want to see *all* reviews answer.

Whereas I think each of these questions is quite important, with the last one
likely to get the most pro-forma responses, since it is the most difficult to
answer knowledgeably.


> On 5/10/2011 3:35 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
...
>> This, and especially that last one, makes it sound like a PROTO write-up.
>> Are you sure you want that from a potentially huge list of people?

I don't see a problem with having a potential large number of people supply 
detailed responses.  (For one thing, I doubt that the typical case is/will be a 
large number...)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net