Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call announcements and records]

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

inline plz.

Den 10/10/2024 kl. 21:53, skrev Brian E Carpenter:
> [moved from tools-discuss]
> 
> On 11-Oct-24 08:06, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, October 10, 2024 13:23 -0500 Robert Sparks
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>
>>> The practices of directorates continuing to change assignments or
>>> provide comments after last call is something I'll leave to the
>>> IESG to steer. Note, however, that almost all of the directorates
>>> also provide telechat reviews, not just last-call reviews.
>>
>> (That brings us to an issue that I thought to mention in my earlier
>> note, decided against it, and may regret mentioning now.  If this is
>> worth pursuing, it should probably be on the IETF list, not here.
>>
>> At least in principle, there is a difference between (i) Last Call as
>> a community discussion mechanism whose effect is to inform the IESG
>> about community consensus and (ii) Last Call as a mechanism to feed
>> information, opinions, and other advice into the IESG so the ADs can
>> determine what they think is the right decision for the Internet.  If
>> those directorate/area reviews are given privileged status -- input
>> into the telechats that ordinary IETF participants don't get, more
>> flexibility about deadlines, etc. -- then the "treat this like any
>> other review" boilerplate of most of those reviews becomes a joke or
>> worse.  It would be somewhat different if those really were
>> directorate or area reviews -- reviews that were written (or
>> finalized) only after specific discussion about the document within
>> that area or directorate and that represented consensus in that
>> group.  But they often are not -- they are more often the opinions of
>> an individual who comes up in rotation or draws a short straw.  If
>> the latter is the case, the community should probably be insisting
>> that reviews that claim to be (or are treated as) representative of a
>> group rather than that of the author as an individual be posted
>> several days before a Last Call ends so that other IETF participants
>> can comment on whatever is said.
>>
>> So telling me/us that directorates provide telechat reviews in
>> addition to or instead of Last Call reviews is a source of concern,
>> not comfort.
> 
> When I was a Gen-ART reviewer it was fairly clear that telechat reviews
> had two properties:
> 
> 1. They were public.
> 
> 2. They were really supposed to be saying either "All my previous
> IETF Last Call comments have been dealt with" or "The following
> IETF Last Call comments have not been dealt with: ...".
> 
> If they go outside those boundaries, yes, there could be a problem.

Why, consider the situation where an author addresses an "IETF Last Call 
comments" introduces a new issue, aren't you allowed to address that?

/Loa
> 
> (Example: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ 
> yS5GdXvzqZhMdueyTjQjRlUVjvg,
> which was sent to  [e-mail], [e-mail], last- 
> [e-mail], and [e-mail])
> 
>      Brian
> 
> 

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
[e-mail]
[e-mail]