Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 10 August 2020 22:33 UTC

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:33:45 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call
Message-ID: <20200810223345.GU92412@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <12164.1596936888@localhost> <CALaySJJUb5jNN1MJiABGGPkagTnJv88n6pnmTmJZjcHd39ayqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJWy76XWwtxW6-LxBbFooW3Akp52u=kPVQ5AXuGeaX82Q@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366E0C527C06D7E93A41AF3B5440@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4366E0C527C06D7E93A41AF3B5440@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RiblaAhhCb3YwkV05kQcgCaScWc>
Precedence: list

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:39:51PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> > Sent: 09 August 2020 17:33
> > To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> > Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; IETF
> > discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>; Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> > Subject: Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:29 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Speaking only for myself: I would always prefer to be reviewing the
> > > latest version available at the time I'm reviewing, and I don't care
> > > whether it's not the same version that another AD reviewed, nor that I
> > > might start reviewing one version and see another posted before I'm
> > > done.
> > >
> > > In other words, I'd rather have updates posted when the judgment of
> > > the authors, working groups, and sponsoring ADs says they should be.
> > >
> > 
> > Me too! Update early, update often. If I comment on an older version,
> > and the issues have already been addressed, thats perfectly fine /
> > preferred...
> [RW] 
> 
> Agreed.  As long as the authors accept that some reviews/comments may be against older versions, then responsive authors fixing the text as the reviews come in generally seems like a good thing.  If an AD is reviewing a document closer to the telechat deadline, then generally any improvements that have already been made to the text normally makes the document easier/quicker to review.

I'm of a similar opinion as Warren, Barry, and Rob -- I'm happy to see
fixes get posted in a new I-D so that I can review the "latest and
greatest" that's available.  I do make a note of which version I'm
reviewing, at least in my local notes, so that I have an easier time
tracking things down if a new version is posted before I'm done.

That said, you can always ask the AD responsible for the document in
question whether you should upload a new version; they should have a pretty
good idea for the general sense of the IESG at that time.

-Ben

dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IE… Michael Richardson
Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Barry Leiba
Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Warren Kumari
RE: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Benjamin Kaduk
Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Murray S. Kucherawy