IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Sun, 20 March 2011 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E623A6BBC for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_URGBIZ=0.725, URG_BIZ=1.585, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9fErGsB-BJy for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD32C3A6AAB for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <TYYXDgADL3d4@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:02:40 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <4D8616E1.1050807@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:01:53 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>, SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <alpine.OSX.2.02.1103191937410.1042@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1103191937410.1042@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:01:10 -0000

Claudio Allocchio wrote:

> I just add to the other comments... it looks quite good in general, but:
>
>> If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, 
>> it is assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review 
>> before the deadline.
>
> but this is not ok. Implicit ACK is bad, because we still do not have 
> internet on airplanes everywhere... and it might happen that we end up 
> on top of some mountain where there is no Internet connection (even 
> if, as you see, we answer email also on Saturday evening  :-)  ).
>
> Please change the implicit ACK with an explicit ACK, and 24 hours is 
> really only for very urgent requests (IESG queue) and should be used 
> only a very short urgent reviews. 2 *working* days is much more likely 
> to accomodate all.

I would even say that 3 days might be Ok, with a second reminder being 
sent after 48 hours.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email