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

SM <> Wed, 27 April 2011 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36111E07C7 for <>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GJSGEY9orLAK for <>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E10E07AE for <>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3RHdq5D010159; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:39:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1303926000; bh=JtKWT2jQZkq7h0ADITOiihNLgkM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=lw1egyjnEcwxaz+1gpu/k8AZ5qSSoR9ZIFRdwWADIj29eLuf4wsSmoIO/V4dehMUa P+CR5aJhjCoNyDobOnGomXp9EmvCMgvUBPRFPiUY3taPOZsbcILupTAEdHKkIZUrP1 Pw9L2O6RndtJ2Bg2JSi7Nu+sV3w9i7tc0mi9oogg=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:28:44 -0700
To: Larry Masinter <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089B783@nambxv01a.corp.>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:40:06 -0000

Hi Larry,

I read your recommendation in the draft review of 
draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 as "do not publish".  I sent an email 
to Eric Burger who is the document shepherd.  I haven't received any reply yet.

I don't know what the Apps ADs' stance will be on this document.  I 
can only ask them to read the review and take it into consideration 
when the document goes through IESG Evaluation.  I hope that you will 
not be discouraged as documents do get published as RFCs even if they 
get bad reviews.  In my opinion, your expertise is put to waste as 
there are people on the apps-discuss mailing list who will read your 
review and learn something from it.

The following is what I found about draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2:

Document shepherd write-up - June 2009

RAI review - June 2009

Sec-dir review - July 2010

In general, I leave it to the author of an Internet-Draft to 
determine whether a review should be taken as constructive criticism 
and feedback on how to improve a document or whether it is merely a 
hurdle to overcome to get that magic RFC number.

Best regards,