IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 24 December 2015 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0A91ACE1F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:46:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 iv5f0qTUC6xD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 0FC761ACDB2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 885FEDA008E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:46:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([169.254.4.19]) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.235.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:46:14 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Thread-Topic: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Thread-Index: AQHROfCb9zLPa1q/Ek6qcVf9e/qLe57R9MuAgAK9EoCAAZ1dAIAAZWiAgAAWX4CAADB5AIAADEQAgAC8tgCAAIXQAIABB18AgAATOvs=
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:46:13 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0C2DE@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.c om> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.c om> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net> <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com> <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net> <4AE6DC68FC9B8CA113CBCDFA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5678D728.2080404@dcrocker.net> <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net> <2508B3C2-8F5F-4417-8052-E73B6F34BED1@standardstrack.com>, <567ACCEE.9030503@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <567ACCEE.9030503@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.66.119.170]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kZSXEMlCCqMe45DnysWRD653uFQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:46:24 -0000

Dave Crocker wrote:
> AD review appears to miss far more than it catches.  That's seems to be
> difficult for some folk to accept, and so they point to the individual
> exceptions rather than the longer pattern of misses.  (By way of some
> very strategic examples, consider IPv6 and DNSSec and email security and
> key management and...)

Do you have data on this?   This doesn't match my experience.   I've found AD review to be very helpful.   It's certainly inconvenient, but I've seen AD reviews catch lots of things that were worth catching.   I would not go so far as to claim that my anecdote is more valid than yours, but I think that if we are going to make claims like this, we should probably back them up with data.   The current AD review process didn't just happen.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email