Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, March 19, 2011 00:50 -0700 SM
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have been acting as Applications Area Review Team Lead for
> nearly a year.  My assessment is that the team is still not
> fully functional.  Alexey made some suggestions.  Please
> comment on the following suggested changes:
>...

This generally looks ok.   I agree with Dave -- implicit ACK is
not a good protocol, especially so when you are anticipating a
24 hour timeout.  As strange as the idea may seem, some of us do
end up with travel, day job, or other commitments that might
result in our being offline wrt review team messages for
significantly longer than that (e.g., while I hope to do better,
my current expectation is that I'll be offline all of the week
starting April 4 due to circumstances entirely beyond my
control).

Although I usually try to make "major/minor/nits" distinctions
when doing reviews, I agree with Dave that it can sometimes be
very difficult,  with rather subjective boundaries, and
time-consuming.  I think you should try to be clear about
priority for that sort of breakdown when you might be able to
get it only at the price of a delayed review or no review at
all.  

Perhaps as the basis for a different classification system for
standards track documents, I also think that it would be very
useful to get a reviewer opinion that distinguished between "not
yet ready for publication given the criteria for the relevant
maturity level in RFC 2026 (as amended)" and "not ready for
publication using other criteria that the author thinks are
appropriate".  Especially from the standpoint of those of us who
believe that the IETF spends too much time fine-tuning
early-stage specifications, making that distinction might be
helpful for the IESG and a useful reminder for everyone else.

Finally, I strongly favor your inclination (and Martin's) to
make this process descriptive rather than normative/rigid.

  john