[Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Fri, 05 November 2004 20:17 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 PAA13636 for <icar-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:17:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQAmZ-00036N-Ln for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:34:07 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQAQm-0005VP-RJ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:11:32 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQAGV-0005TJ-Hg for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:00:55 -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 PAA11470 for <icar@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:00:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.thingmagic.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQAWI-0002jw-2e for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:17:15 -0500
Received: from [10.0.0.75] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 187115 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:54:43 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com
Message-Id: <p06020428bdb18a2866e4@[192.168.2.2]>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:00:26 -0500
To: icar@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Subject: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2

Hi All,

(Writing just as an interested participant...)

I've been watching the evolution of ICAR, and it seems like we aren't 
succeeding in building a centralized structure for early review.  I 
think that there are a number of reasons for this, the most pertinent 
of which (IMO) is that a WG is not the right vehicle to develop and 
manage a program.

So, I have some ideas for directions that ICAR could take that don't 
involve building a centralized review infrastructure, so they might 
be more suitable to

(1) Document cross-area review criteria.  This would help to educate 
authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for.

(2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review 
resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops 
directorate, etc.) to get early review for their documents?  Maybe 
this could be a proposed "July 14" experiment?

Thoughts?

Margaret



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