IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 166C412998B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:06:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kbJD9FNrZ32a for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxa2.tigertech.net (mxa2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C567B1298C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB0BDC0113; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:06:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1487117189; bh=UtOQR8n9nmkykt9sxeB4gtORpRQnicqb2XDhSFG+5dM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AfUJIlJ92hykpNatDM9VwmMsIobWS2NV4ctbZ4p5+4ybKMqQz9ZrEGGi8hvGuI0BJ ScZJtTM74B+3i/alr5ZRtCYRDbsGdWIB0SCFxclkSqyOQFBqxwxbI2SAfAGOE2IjFf XjSZ4TYQt9fQhtrilQmQtjk6QBQiz2XcydrCARi8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6004DC0116; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
To: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <9e0de86c-ceb3-8d05-8191-bdfd68521f00@gmail.com> <p0624060ad4c94966bc39@[99.111.97.136]>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <4965a53f-1e45-b444-1430-7d56ac413d50@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:06:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <p0624060ad4c94966bc39@[99.111.97.136]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XQs5z51_ASgxCoDOuBRHcRh-DRs>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:06:31 -0000

There is a procedure (that I thought was pretty widely known) that 
allows chairs to request early cross-are review when they think it is 
helpful.  I know that several of the review teams support this.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/14/17 6:56 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 12:18 PM +1300 2/15/17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>  2. As a Gen-ART reviewer I've often seen drafts at IETF LC that
>>  really *need* a general, in-depth review.
>
> As a document author, I appreciate the area reviews done by GEN, SEC,
> etc.  However, I think they would be just as useful and perhaps more
> timely if done during WGLC (assuming the WG does a WGLC).
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email