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

SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 23 September 2011 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 1797221F8C79 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 oSe2xkPQlu3z for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3BE21F8C12 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8NKvv2A032358; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:58:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1316811484; bh=7+rEUyrD8/DJFzhUGxLQyCu893U=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=cKh5Nw0zrYSMOnIrzE/up6ykOr6Ne0gpM2/YKsdjNkuNTrwE9B1F4Fh2laUxNRgk/ taEXjHujSimrxNG+aTiz9c8tZB63liSXxkymFOIQ4Yv2rtwcAMMC7KIM/8ZI+Z1LDS 2BYEA3dMb+1F3KiUzDJdoqbBD1Qq8mgTdvRzlSw0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110923131713.09b6ade8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:56:37 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+xdPc-oi7BHisgnFcJ-LffyU=YCyv1rn6Zcarf_biXBQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+xdPc-oi7BHisgnFcJ-LffyU=YCyv1rn6Zcarf_biXBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:55:36 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 08:18 23-09-2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
>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):

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.  I'll use your new text.

As a general comment, we send the review to apps-discuss as it has a 
wider readership.

>--------------------------------------------------
>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.

Ok.

General comment, some of the reviews are early reviews, i.e. they are 
performed before a Last Call has been initiated.  It is easier to ask 
for a change and less work for the author/working group.  I don't ask 
for a Cc to the IESG in such cases.  If the Apps ADs or anyone thinks 
that it is appropriate to also copy the IESG in such cases, please let me know.

I would like to ask you whether it is worth picking editorial nits in 
an early review.

>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 will try that.

>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

Please ask Ned for a login for http://www.apps.ietf.org/user/  If 
anyone needs a login, feel free to email me.

>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
>--------------------------------------------------

That looks good.  I posted your change.  Feel free to edit it.

Should the examples be updated?

BTW, if you have notice any drafts from other areas that might 
benefit from an early review, please let me know.

Best regards,
-sm