Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24
Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Wed, 27 April 2011 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F218E0822 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fqzts3nAZMmS for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og117.obsmtp.com (exprod6og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CA8E0810 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob117.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTbh9AkjAzHSi3KZSrIDCsIb/i/DUBfXW@postini.com; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:31:04 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p3RKU2ES022732; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p3RKUvPY001214; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.100]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:30:57 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:30:27 -0700
Thread-Topic: apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24
Thread-Index: AcwFAiUr+ut1b6lpT6G2W7ceGQKIeQAFpTjw
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089BA17@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089B718@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110426092800.0304c710@elandnews.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089B783@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110427091204.05694848@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110427091204.05694848@elandnews.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" <apps-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:31:05 -0000
I'm willing to put more time into reviewing and working with the authors if I get feedback that my review comments will be considered. Given that the protocol is already widely implemented interoperabily, the goal of getting a "RFC number" shouldn't override completely the goal of having a standard of quality for RFCs which rises to the level that a RFC can be understood by reading the RFC. I think substantial editorial improvemenet could be made with, oh, a week's worth of work on the part of the editors fixing introductory material, clearing up references. However, the most important thing for moving this document forward would be to insure that the normative requirements (MUST, MAY, SHOULD) are actually testable or at least determinable, in the path of moving the document to Draft Standard.... where each "feature" needs evaluation as to mulitple independent interoperable implementations of every feature. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -----Original Message----- From: SM [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:29 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: RE: apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 Hi Larry, I read your recommendation in the draft review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 as "do not publish". I sent an email to Eric Burger who is the document shepherd. I haven't received any reply yet. I don't know what the Apps ADs' stance will be on this document. I can only ask them to read the review and take it into consideration when the document goes through IESG Evaluation. I hope that you will not be discouraged as documents do get published as RFCs even if they get bad reviews. In my opinion, your expertise is put to waste as there are people on the apps-discuss mailing list who will read your review and learn something from it. The following is what I found about draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2: Document shepherd write-up - June 2009 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc/current/msg02386.html RAI review - June 2009 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc/current/msg02396.html Sec-dir review - July 2010 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg01853.html In general, I leave it to the author of an Internet-Draft to determine whether a review should be taken as constructive criticism and feedback on how to improve a document or whether it is merely a hurdle to overcome to get that magic RFC number. Best regards, -sm
- Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-… SM
- Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-… Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-… SM
- Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-… Eric Burger
- [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-spee… Larry Masinter