IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Sun, 14 November 2004 17:28 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27114 for <icar-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:28:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTOCX-0007s4-ET for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:30:10 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTO7c-0005DS-9A; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:25:04 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTO1S-0004Te-57 for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:18:42 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26630 for <icar@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTO3H-0007Uz-8Y for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:20:35 -0500
Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAEHIZJ2061359; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:18:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id iAEHIYrI061358; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:18:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:18:34 -0700
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR
In-Reply-To: <99BABBE88AACBD9FCD65A33C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Message-ID: <20041114100640.O60832@measurement-factory.com>
References: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> <99BABBE88AACBD9FCD65A33C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: ICAR Mailing List <icar@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review <icar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>, <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> why wait for permission, or to be asked? Why not perform the wg-00 
> reviews, archive them, and build experience that way?

While, in theory, every draft can be reviewed, reviewing a document 
that is not ready/meant for review can be a waste of time or even 
annoying to the WG. Since IETF process assigns special value to -00 
versions drafts with respect to F2F meeting deadlines, reviewing those 
would be especially risky.

If all drafts had a "State of this draft" notices or at least "please 
review" flags, we could select drafts that are ready/meant for 
external review. Until then, I would suggest at least asking the WG 
whether they think a review of a given WG draft version would be 
useful.

$0.02,

Alex.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email