Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 19 March 2011 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 E2D843A69B8 for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2Tw10kF0snCH for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7B63A69BB for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JJA7vU028850; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:10:17 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300561819; bh=N+w6E5btdiiw9jypBRu2pOcAhWE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=sDooqfvAgzav8rePpR8ymc6rQDIl+JCr55rcESk1F+ea5jzObuYhU15UMbLEGWY5t zg4rrk1oRmuVJyFQtkjF/z3soRsbNhX6vMksTTP9diPs7DveRlNuamTHePE34Eh9pQ hfXMepiPzkLv2BB1OvoaibTrhvqw5MJr1AlBR7vg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319095600.0bc0c0d8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:09:04 -0700
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:08:57 -0000
Hi Dave, At 08:48 19-03-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >I suggest that all assignments MUST receive an explicit >acknowledgment. I'm not sure what the timeout should be for the >less urgent ones, but 24 hours seems fine for the IESG (relatively urgent) one. > >But a default ack is not a good protocol construct for critical functions... I agree. However, we are not working on a protocol here. This is a people issue. If I assign you a review, I know that you will send an ack within 24 hours. If you do not do that, I would wait for a couple of days as I know that you generally do reply to emails. If I go for MUST receive an explicit acknowledgement, I already have historical evidence that it will fail in at least 50% of cases even if I wait five working days for an answer. I'll be candid. The suggested changes are to get team members to actually perform the assignments instead of having an Applications Area Review Team in name only. The latest review was assigned to Carsten. It falls within an IETF period where he will be travelling to Prague and he will be busy at the meeting. I do take that into account. My choices are simple; I can tell Alexey and Peter that the review cannot be done within two weeks or I can discuss with Carsten to find an alternative that fits his schedule. I prefer the latter. That is why I told him that he can take more than two weeks. From past experience, I know that he will deliver on the review. I prefer not to comment on specific cases of reviews that have not been performed. Alexey and Peter probably know about them even though I did not discuss the cases with them. >I usually follow a review format that has: > > 1. Summary of my understanding of the purpose and content of the > document. This is a common reviewing technique and it establishes a > base of factual understanding, before launching into the my > opinions about the quality of the content. If I have any > misunderstanding of the basics, it's better to surface that at the > outset. I also find that the discipline of formulating the factual > summary helps to organize my thoughts about the draft. Thanks for sharing this. It would help the Apps Area ADs if the summary clearly states whether the document is ready for publication. > 2. Summary of major issues > > 3. Inline detailed comments. For extended documents, the > detailed feedback is typically extensive and not subject to > summarization. I frankly do not know how to break it out into > clean distinctions of major/minor/nits without dramatically more > work. In addition, my view of major vs. minor vs. nit is likely > not to match the authors'... > >Adding an explicit "rating" at the beginning seems like an excellent >idea; I'll try to remember to add one. The clean distinctions are certainly more work and it is not always clear what should be major or minor. And as you said, it may not necessarily match the author's or even the Apps Area ADs' view. I'll use the review of apps-team review of draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07 as an example ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02268.html ). As Joshua mentioned, the I-D is an update to RFC 4741 and has therefore "stood the test of time". If the reviewer gives a "Do Not Publish" in such a case, it won't stop publication. Best regards, -sm
- [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications … SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggest… Pete Resnick
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Sug… Ted Hardie
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Sug… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Sug… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Sug… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews Pete Resnick
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Eric Burger
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Sug… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Eric Burger
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave Cridland
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave Cridland
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… SM
- Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applicati… Dave CROCKER