Re: Dealing with IESG reviews

David Schinazi <> Wed, 06 January 2021 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EE33A1295 for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 14:32:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zGM-tQfq3TTZ for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 14:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C24513A09BB for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 14:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j1so2289458pld.3 for <>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 14:32:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CsTYdEex/BvJj4a5k1FAfiNCKpQ+TvaabNJkyt3a+og=; b=bOG+fGVjlA33+VtFq5x8P2SvW9c2siw6n8baOe9+JV6XnCn1dejprDRx64h5F3aO5m vGAvVAu5mFKp+tJfUrXZHeQC9G7beV/pyg0qq3UT7uItk7YlWQMyWBoDqDuIcdJnxalS 7gSNovFeZaIiermRN9M+P61aVF9mewi3cxqG+/THvgNxLTPib/bN5wciIMaymWmtUUZe B+LCEJt7LmyQzjidIckvFP+ybXyLhGP+oBx6sPSkYDPYRZ+/+x4v1yehRA0JuVMaFQdq 2x9YUiPLwMAnBEf3MuUFtxQ5b7MSALK7OHPmrkNTpQ2Vg/FrHFoN/cuN4yUp9OBkhHWU VHqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CsTYdEex/BvJj4a5k1FAfiNCKpQ+TvaabNJkyt3a+og=; b=NX2MJvYitgoXXtMABa5WDJt7k2yyXBnicKnU/VBDbik//N/C/c0kHLFN9guch6h+B9 h9xiEBuOOHjh0w6fhdUQId53yXjNE2Bc/UMrUiDCbnWo4RkK42fexOX3Lf8MeDhZmEw4 HyR3kzxOzGBOyJ5M2wG6k1TPR3Z98wLoGPEIQCR8w3Del0YHdQpa+oRL66rGTM/j1Sfh KpzntQrPe6iWUMBE2TcEPwx14Ub8tADNL5cJ8S2MGZTWoLxESoiX5WAUWUEr7vpTCNAV UEIH7wA0SIoxJtfNBqjjOHbRQa9+NDM+F0KftpfGB7gaBUwHAUk482g7bkL6/iEZ4xII 7Rgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pYsP/s1tT7mwg75aDpWxZLqQDkg3Yu69ZCzsgX2YaTHxZd6AN FhOkuL4LkIXfr/NOojtpubad+EGyZ6EtxsxtMlVF8g5rVi8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXHqF7W3tEdvujgLXPMuK1To92CoaEdgr2chhMqL6PFzmlMKStIBhXhNSLtDuFUf5az4U22LisVnASHLsYKak=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c215:b029:da:b079:b9a3 with SMTP id 21-20020a170902c215b02900dab079b9a3mr6027349pll.67.1609972336335; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 14:32:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Schinazi <>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:32:05 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Dealing with IESG reviews
To: Lucas Pardue <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>, Lars Eggert <>, Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000349f1e05b842e5b8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 22:32:18 -0000

Thanks Lucas! Separate emails to boost the visibility of all design changes
will be most appreciated!


On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:32 PM Lucas Pardue <>

> Hi Folks,
> As some of you may have noticed, ahead of the IESG telechat on January
> 7th, our friends in the IESG are steadily entering their ballot positions
> on the transport, recovery, tls, and invariants drafts.
> The chairs have created issues in the QUIC WG GitHub repository to help
> track follow on discussion and proposed actions. We use the label "iesg"
> (and the appropriate document label):
> Issues are also tracked in per-document milestones:
>    - transport:
>    - tls:
>    - recovery:
>    - invariants:
> As you can see, there's a large volume of comments that have come in a
> short amount of time. Naming things is an art, attempting to synthesize
> concise titles on behalf of IESG reviewers risks us adding subjectivity to
> the review and/or losing something in translation (not to mention it is
> more time consuming). So to avoid that, each member's review comments or
> discuss items has been given a unique integer identifier e.g. "Ben Kaduk's
> TLS Comment 1". Since the titles are not super descriptive, one approach to
> considering if you have an interest in a particular issue is to look at our
> response email to each ballot response, which provides the issue link
> underneath each of the reviewers' comments.
> Many of these issues are editorial and under the remit of our editors to
> address. Some will be assessed as duplicates or to require no specification
> changes - aka close with no action. Some might be more thorny, especially
> anything related to DISCUSS items. We'll send separate emails to boost the
> visibility of these if it looks like spec changes are needed.
> Cheers,
> Lucas
> On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs