Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-03.txt

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Thu, 03 September 2015 03:31 UTC

From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker.all@ietf.org" <draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-03.txt
Thread-Index: AdDlLfBkt2p0Tf9ZTGCTvUrG7bj1GA==
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:31:12 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF63A8ED8F3@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF63A8EBAE1@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <55E70D0D.80702@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fLTp5Si1skNu3QXCi4zBDBKcawk>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-03.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Robert,
   Thanks for your quick response. Your explanations sound good.

On 09/02/2015 10:52 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> * Section 2
>>
>> Not sure what the "draft's primary email alias" refers to. Is this the
>> draft-foo@ietf.org or draft-foo.all@ietf.org? In either case it may make
>> sense to clarify.
> We could (and it would be easy), but why? This is an informational
> section to capture background. As it notes at the beginning it is "not
> intended to be comprehensive documentation of how review teams operate."
> I don't think adding the detail will help whoever is implementing to the
> requirements in this document.

Right, but the phrase "draft's primary email alias" does not mean much 
without further clarification. I was not looking to add the email alias 
verbatim to the text but to provide a better description of what "the 
primary alias" means. Since this is just descriptive text I guess it is 
OK to leave it as ia.

>
>>
>> * Section 3.3
>>
>> "A reviewer must be able to configure the tool to remind them when
>> actions are due."
>>
>> It would be nice if the tool would allow the reviewer to set an
>> individually customizable lead time here. e.g. Remind 2 days before the
>> LC is due or 3 days before the Telechat.
> Yes, but rather than try to get it done as part of this project,  I
> think this would be a good feature to add during a codesprint once the
> base tool is available. Would that work for you?

Great. That works for me.

>>
>> * Not sure if this should be in Section 3.2 or 3.3 but it would be nice
>> of the deadlines for review would automatically be changed when the
>> document is rescheduled to another telechat and the secretary and
>> reviewer are simply notified.
> Agreed. I think, again, this is a feature we can add at a codesprint -
> defers are really unusual.

OK.

>
>>
>> * Section 3.4
>>
>> Shouldn't it be possible for the review requester (e.g. an AD) to set an
>> earlier deadline manually for one or more reviews (e.g. due to
>> travel/vacation)?
> That's intended already, and the suggested models support that.
> We can add a requirement making it even more explicit, but fwiw, this is
> something that wouldn't get missed as the tool got developed even if we
> didn't.

OK.

Thanks
Suresh

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sparks… Suresh Krishnan
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sparks… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sp… Robert Sparks
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-sp… Suresh Krishnan