Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call announcements and records]
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 11 October 2024 21:52 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E9EC1D6FBB; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3fU-lARDvmb; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C008DC1840E3; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2fad100dd9fso38433801fa.3; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1728683526; x=1729288326; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IA5f7rGy5Cfxr4A1al2rxZ20wPVGEuMNzTVvA1fYzMA=; b=DczS+y7NQ1R9zQHVz+SvH/B5DN1vt59afRfXdPtgqw7IB7HepQVjX2uXm+16VHpkRz DGl/BCULS2H+BdoW+9fEQuRq1zAVJnsFvay5mCCKv8wxV5OckVeTebkm7NkL/Y+OBL3q 8GXznJP+6dUybGKAdC3s3UnjhkSkY4ekKazkWU9GvHNceiof9GOTWM7X4IGEKV+LcgP/ tHU8bmMs1A/l04IzLrBhOXZ1zhtk+Mf7/F11y+JKeBKg3r1PgIWRRAhbTbAcWwoFLvkN bR58co/raViceHryiSq8BljYlCaVn4s8KG5SbkgJCI1le23E0k8NK5BJrS6SvdvSgd/j mIVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728683526; x=1729288326; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IA5f7rGy5Cfxr4A1al2rxZ20wPVGEuMNzTVvA1fYzMA=; b=PF6sRlueufCzcfuUZIAFIdn8LP0ZQpDO5oMI45KffdujPwKSRJtwi+bY5rBT4o2EMl zoUX/+LvI1/08hv+oKVDYf5H18i0YEkns9vc6X07GrEixalJCHmdJ4HqHYAcvMOSwWFf D4Q5fj29ZpEIndHrjsUn3Zw3PfR37lm7lYSIBWD/D9KtP498lDc8il50Cn+CQMsE2rwo 5thpqgCKoVs6LRJCKEoRhwvbJ02MMm3zew/91M18ZOyX96L0ZrJwZT5J2MimEj6BzbY4 KqCQfNF4m5fFwW6psS1v8fKs1tbftNlxapq/oyrBhkZMllMz8WGMqaI8hf6oQRhXWULZ tbyg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVqDdqiDb+9ijJH4QJyW5ft7Tr3QwnnfIuiux0YZFUUCUFmlqAohdjTGLggEJNYZ0+iDqaNUw==@ietf.org, AJvYcCXJyftCM84vbsV9sdcdNap96AXs+H78r63xq53MKJK0a2P8kL67KtcO4sVjCrnv7aGzjYCh@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxGxlvuylkRlHBlip0RPDu5Zoot9N7i8ZDlzWNNCGcp4kmnSMaW cdtSU9JBEz9UQclEsoYTVx83LqkA5UfMo9soBFpTIcF60DbqbTvLjyMWkhUN+YOiqGvhCXKuYNC 2H8kMsK3KK+o4i0pggrq6ajcPB2JhSg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGtDS69CB/Gc7eNDCqnC1ufK9b4GzLot0SWlWmOdJ1lBzFrDU1tgsqBqo0Zx3tRl5zUEzy5QJpyeadSWB57Jsg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:6c9:b0:533:71f:3a3d with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539e54f8ca7mr645950e87.24.1728683525596; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <822159B0D390905C0A194997@PSB> <e8a0b44b-8ecf-4b24-94d4-9c79ddd26d41@amsl.com> <F3ACA29EAAC4DE9FE06EDA21@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <F3ACA29EAAC4DE9FE06EDA21@PSB>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:51:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaKw8P7CGXXXHM5Hh6YvkMMqeN8OOgpv2v7Yrob5QsQ7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call announcements and records]
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078f10b06243a7f1c"
Message-ID-Hash: G2DJSZBVIQVJHYH7XO7DKLJ2HBPK5HUZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: G2DJSZBVIQVJHYH7XO7DKLJ2HBPK5HUZ
X-MailFrom: superuser@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KAWV_bKKMXsUWKSuq1tXelLyWkI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>
Hi John, On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:01 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. Seems entirely reasonable with one or > two qualifications. First, if you (and/or other areas) are doing > things that way, the review needs to be posted to the Last Call list > well before the Last Call closes out so there is time for people from > the Area and the broader community to comment on it. Second, if the > posted end of Last Call date is unreasonable or unattainable for some > reason, I'd hope the responsible AD could be notified of that early > in the Last Call window -- at least no later than a week before it is > closed -- rather than, e.g., after the close date. That would permit > actions, if needed, to be taken without things looking like a game of > "Gotcha" with the AD and WG and/or author(s) responsible for the > document. > For what it's worth, in my time on the IESG, I haven't found the need to manage this vigorously. If there's a directorate review I'd really like to have, I have the discretion to wait for it before scheduling the document onto a telechat even though Last Call has ended. If the review has come in but it provokes discussion, I have the discretion to wait for that discussion to resolve before moving forward. If we're talking about a document that isn't one of mine and a review comes in from my area review team raising something on which I'd like to dive deeper, I can use DISCUSS for that (so long as I am diligent about clearing it once the discussion is had, of course). That's been my strategy for a while now and it's never raised a complaint, which (so far, at least) includes the document you're talking about here. The thing I used to determine if the review has come in is the datatracker. I will check the last-call list too, but the datatracker provides a nice snapshot of which reviews have been requested and which have come in, and is usually where I start when checking on a document's status. Just to keep this all public: For this particular document, I have pinged the assigned directorate reviewers to ask them to upload their reviews ASAP on this document. As I said elsewhere, I might be fine advancing a document missing a couple of directorate reviews, but not all of them. If they don't come in soon, I'll reach out to the review team chairs to ask for reassignments. Lastly, I would definitely appreciate a notification (automated or otherwise) when a directorate review is going to be late. Right now all the tracker tells me is "not done", which could mean "not done yet" or could mean "don't hold your breath". -MSK
- Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … S Moonesamy
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … John C Klensin
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … John C Klensin
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Jean Mahoney
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … John C Klensin
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Jean Mahoney
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Barry Leiba
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Loa Andersson
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … John C Klensin
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Barry Leiba
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Mary B
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Michael Richardson
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … tom petch
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Michael Richardson
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Joel Halpern
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Michael Richardson
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … John C Klensin
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Salz, Rich
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … John C Klensin
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Barry Leiba
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last … Rob Sayre