Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

I would offer that after this long and our third editor, the only hope for editorial cleanup would be to have professionals do the cleaning, i.e., the RFC Editor.

The normative requirements issue is potentially a substantial issue that we will look into.

As SM says, Larry has already gone beyond the call of duty given the length and detail of this document.

On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:21 PM, SM wrote:

> Hi Larry,
> At 13:30 27-04-2011, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The document contains 221 pages.  I am aware that you have already spent eight hours on this assignment.  I could say "thanks for putting in more time in the review" as it gets the work done.  Instead, I'll say that you have done more work than expected and it is good to consider whether the authors and working group will make good use of your expertise.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, but that's often ignored for the sake of expediency.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> There aren't a lot of RFCs that move from "Proposed" to "Draft".  Most working groups do not get their documents beyond "Proposed".  Convincing the IESG that it is worth the effort is not worth the effort. :-)
> 
> Please go ahead and post the review.
> 
> Best regards,
> -sm 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review