Re: [Icar] an early review experiment

I may be going through a phase, but I would prefer to see ICAR reviews
with no special status.

My dream (and perhaps the dream of others) is that ICAR reviews are
accessible from the document tracker. If this happens, it seems
trivial enough for the IESG, or whomever we finally decide actually
approves publication, to e-mail the ICAR reviewers and ask if there
are still outstanding issues in the reviewer's opinion.

If "no", the working group resolved the issues.

If "yes", the IESG knows which end of the haystack to start looking
at. If the review comment seems important enough to "discuss" (in the
IESG sense of the word), it will be resolved, later and more painfully
than was necessary.

My experience has been that reviewees were either thrilled to have
someone carefully reading their document, or were so detached that (I
am not making this up) a document that hit the IESG telechat agenda
within the last two months referred to keywords ala RFC 2119 AS A
DRAFT:

   [KEYWORDS] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
        Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January,
        1997.

- so no one had looked for nits in the document in the last seven
years.

Either way, I don't think making a document editor agree with me is
necessary or desirable.

YMMV, of course.

Spencer

>
>   + How binding are early, cross area review comments on authors /
>     editors / WGs?
>
>  + one end of the spectrum would be that ICAR-type comments must be
>    addressed before the document moves forward
>
>  + the other end of the space seems to me to be that the ICAR-type
>    reviews are just like any other review that comes in from a
>    community member (i.e., no special status)

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar