Re: [PANRG] [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review, Laurent!

Colin




> On 26 Nov 2020, at 10:11, Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Brian, all,
> 
> Please find attached my review of the draft.
> 
> Overall the document is in good shape.
> 
> My comments are mostly about needed clarifications for some statements, and suggestions for improvement.
> 
> Best regards, 
> Laurent
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: irsg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Colin Perkins
>> Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 20:43
>> To: The IRSG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07
>> 
>> IRSG members,
>> 
>> The Path Aware Networking Research Group has requested that draft-irtf-
>> panrg-questions-07 be considered for publication as an IRTF RFC. To
>> progress this draft, we now need *at least one* IRSG member to volunteer
>> to provide a detailed review of the draft, as follows:
>> 
>>> The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and
>> technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep
>> technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least one
>> IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work forth must
>> review the document and the RG’s editorial process.
>>> 
>>> IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. An
>> important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from
>> reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, assure
>> the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring research
>> group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient editorial and
>> technical review has been conducted and the requirements for publication
>> described in RFC 5743  have been met. Finally, reviewers should check that
>> appropriate citations to related research literature have been made.
>>> 
>>> Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be sent
>> to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. All IRSG
>> review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not accept every
>> comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to understand the
>> comments and ensure that the RG considers them including adequate dialog
>> between the reviewer and the author and/or RG. Reviews and their
>> resolution should be entered into the tracker by the document shepherd.
>>> 
>>> The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the
>> reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, the
>> shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be published.
>> 
>> Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a review,
>> and indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be able to
>> complete it. The document shepherd write-up is available at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-panrg-
>> questions/shepherdwriteup/
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Colin (as IRTF chair)
> 
> <draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07-review-laurent.pdf>


-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/