IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Icar] an early review experiment

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> Wed, 19 May 2004 13:08 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08811 for <icar-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 09:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQQlW-0002Yu-5F for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 09:05:46 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JD5kas009849 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 09:05:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQQa9-00076r-RO for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:54:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06806 for <icar-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQQa8-0007R3-ET for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:54:00 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQQZG-0007Ed-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:53:07 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQQYE-00072h-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:52:02 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQQL4-0004CY-1o; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:38:26 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQPbB-0005a1-RK for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 07:51:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03492 for <icar@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 07:51:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQPbA-0003pT-UR for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 07:51:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQPZi-0003TT-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 07:49:31 -0400
Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQPY8-00032K-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 07:47:52 -0400
Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-99-5.client.comcast.net[24.1.99.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20040519114716013003rqh8e> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Wed, 19 May 2004 11:47:16 +0000
Message-ID: <068e01c43d97$24266ab0$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21>
Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
To: <icar@ietf.org>
References: <20040518180234.313BA77AB51@guns.icir.org> <40AB15A0.5090804@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Icar] an early review experiment
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 06:48:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>, <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review <icar.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:icar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>, <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm registered as a SIR, so I'm obviously pretty comfortable with the
view of SIRs in this draft, but it seems to me like one tipping point
needs to be pointed out.

From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:06 AM


> These questions are discussed in detail in
> draft-carpenter-solution-sirs-01.txt
> but I have done some cut and paste below.
>
> Mark Allman wrote:
> >
> >   + Precisely, what is produced?
>
> There is a whole section (3.3) about this in the SIRs draft,
> from which this is a very small extract:
>
>       SIRs should review for all kinds of problems, from
>       basic architectural or security issues, Internet-wide
>       impact, technical nits, problems of form and format
>       (such as IANA Considerations or incorrect references),
>       and editorial issues. As a draft progresses from its
>       initial, "-00" version towards one that is ready for
>       submission, successive SIR reviews should progress from
>       the general architectural level to the editorial level.

It seems to me that I'm seeing two types of reviewer pools proposed -
a reviewer pool that ties to a particular Area of expertise (so the
transport ADs provide transport reviewers to the other Area Review
Teams, and these reviewers look for transport sanity), or a reviewer
pool that reviews as generalists, as do SIRs (and as do ADs, during AD
review).

There are reasons for both, even for early cross-area review. It Would
Be Nice if we didn't try to choose between them.

> >   + What other things need nailed down before we can think about
an
> >     experiment?
>
>  From the SIRs experience, do not even think about starting until
> you have a good web site up & running where (a) all reviewers can be
> registered (b) authors and WG Chairs can request reviews and
> (c) reviewers can post, and the public can read, their reviews.

Amen.



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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email