[apps-discuss] Responding to Applications Area Directorate reviews

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I'll comment on the template used for Applications Area Directorate 
(AppsDir) reviews as it may help authors to respond to the reviews.

   "Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
    you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
    or AD before posting a new version of the draft."

In plain English, this means that the comments in the review does not 
bear more weight than a comment submitted by an individual during a Last Call.

The Applications Area Directors may or may not agree with the 
comments of the AppsDir reviewer.  The  Applications Area Directorate 
does not have any veto power on a draft.  It is suggested that the 
author(s) asks the document shepherd (RFC 4858) or the Area Director 
who sponsored the draft for guidance about IETF process, changes that 
should be made, whether to post a new revision, etc.

A review generally list issues as major or minor.  I'll use a review 
performed by Ted Hardie as an example ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04847.html ).

The reviewer explained why he considered some issues as major.  The 
author discussed about the issues with the reviewer ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04859.html 
).  There isn't a clear-cut rule on what is a major or minor 
issue.  It's up to the reviewer to make a judgement call.  It is up 
to the author(s), or working group, to decide about whether these 
issues should be resolved and how to do so.

Some AppsDir reviews may list nits.  These nits are generally 
editorial issues.  For example:

  "I personally found the Introduction somewhat hard to parse"

That doesn't mean that the author has to make changes to the 
Introduction section.  It's an editorial decision.  It's up to the 
authors to determine whether the text should be changed so that the 
reader can understand it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy