Re: [apps-review] Apps review team review request template

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Sun, 25 September 2011 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 7E28221F8C0A for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HtMUZfd6S7G for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C6521F8BEB for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p8P1L40x021179 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:21:07 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 322d_12c6_a3349f82_e714_11e0_88ac_001d096c5782; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:21:04 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:40992) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S155402A> for <apps-review@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:21:05 +0900
Message-ID: <4E7E81F1.1070005@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:49 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJ+xdPc-oi7BHisgnFcJ-LffyU=YCyv1rn6Zcarf_biXBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+xdPc-oi7BHisgnFcJ-LffyU=YCyv1rn6Zcarf_biXBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps review team review request template
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: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:18:42 -0000

Just for the record - As one of the recent offenders, and probably the 
one who triggered this proposal, I agree with these changes.

What I did when I wrote up the review was to look at an older example 
and follow that. Apparently, that was also mistaken, or was too old.

One thing I did which we currently don't say anything about is that I 
cc'ed the WG in charge of the document. This is mostly because if I'm in 
a WG that gets a review (e.g. security, gen-art), I'd also like to see 
these.

What do others think?

Regards,   Martin.

On 2011/09/24 0:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, SM.
> Seeing how many reviewers post their reviews to apps-review prompts me
> to suggest a change to the up-front paragraph of your review request
> template.  I suggest this (example taken from a recent review
> request):
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> OLD
> Pete requested a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18.  The review has
> been assigned to you and is due before September 4.
>
> NEW
> Pete requested a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18.  The review has
> been assigned to you and is due before September 4.  Please post your
> review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to apps-review.
> --------------------------------------------------
> OLD
> The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the IESG, the
> WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable.
>
> NEW
> The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the IESG, the authors, the
> WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable.  You can use the tools
> alias draft-ietf-p2psip-base.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors,
> chairs, and shepherd.  If your review recommends significant changes
> to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the
> working group's mailing list.
>
> Suggested distribution:
>     To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-base.all@tools.ietf.org
>     cc: iesg@ietf.org
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think that makes it easier for the reviewers to get it right, and
> not all the reviewers know how to use the tools aliases, so I think
> this will help.  Want to try it?
>
> I would also update the wiki, but I can't see how to (can you tell
> me?).  If you want to, here's my suggestion for
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> OLD
> This page provides a template for reviews provided by members of the
> Apps-Review Team.
> Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list and make
> sure to cc the author(s) of the specification you are reviewing! You
> might also want to check out some samples, such as the reviews of
> draft-wahl-ldap-p3p, draft-ietf-btns-c-api,
> draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis, draft-merrick-jms-uri, and
> draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.
>
> NEW
> This page provides a template for reviews provided by members of the
> Apps-Review Team.
>
> Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list
> ([bold]not[/bold] to the apps-review list), and to the ".all" tools
> alias for the specification you are reviewing (see below)!  In cases
> where your review recommends significant changes to a working-group
> document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing
> list.
>
> You might also want to check out some samples, such as the reviews of
> draft-wahl-ldap-p3p, draft-ietf-btns-c-api,
> draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis, draft-merrick-jms-uri, and
> draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.
>
> Suggested distribution list for reviews:
>     To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-name-without-version-num.all@tools.ietf.org
>     cc: iesg@ietf.org
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> apps-review mailing list
> apps-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>