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

SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 27 April 2011 22:24 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 B4299E0752 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqIVsE-u7hv8 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916ECE0713 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3RMOI1T025880; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:24:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1303943066; bh=hviu8s/VYE05ZqNioMJxpprtf7w=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=F6hoLNjKkarohCxzZ2zpRYREhNpQmr42Ds923EOA62cWfwhYSLmafuznam6mcJ8g4 UMRrPAqnTbEF/JjXzPDl5GlgHrN+Lr1RE65UVxl1Tf1s1ScNUoFQfE/CKGQDWRXLFG +YSEPoNzsxagOhK3cLJJZnOVcV/6elOfDAnYhlxw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110427142718.03163040@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:21:43 -0700
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089BA17@nambxv01a.corp. adobe.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089B718@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110426092800.0304c710@elandnews.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089B783@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110427091204.05694848@elandnews.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A089BA17@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-review] apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24
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: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:24:28 -0000

Hi Larry,
At 13:30 27-04-2011, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I'm willing to put more time into reviewing and working with the 
>authors if I get feedback that my review comments will be considered.

The document contains 221 pages.  I am aware that you have already 
spent eight hours on this assignment.  I could say "thanks for 
putting in more time in the review" as it gets the work 
done.  Instead, I'll say that you have done more work than expected 
and it is good to consider whether the authors and working group will 
make good use of your expertise.

>Given that the protocol is already widely implemented 
>interoperabily, the goal of getting a "RFC number" shouldn't 
>override completely the goal of having a standard of quality for 
>RFCs which rises to the level that a RFC can be understood by reading the RFC.

Yes, but that's often ignored for the sake of expediency.

>I think substantial editorial improvemenet could be made with, oh, a 
>week's worth of work on the part of the editors fixing introductory 
>material, clearing up references.

Ok.

>However, the most important thing for moving this document forward 
>would be to insure that the normative requirements (MUST, MAY, 
>SHOULD) are actually testable or at least determinable, in the path 
>of moving the document to Draft Standard.... where each "feature" 
>needs evaluation as to mulitple independent interoperable 
>implementations of every feature.

There aren't a lot of RFCs that move from "Proposed" to 
"Draft".  Most working groups do not get their documents beyond 
"Proposed".  Convincing the IESG that it is worth the effort is not 
worth the effort. :-)

Please go ahead and post the review.

Best regards,
-sm