Dealing with IESG reviews

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

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):
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/labels/iesg

Issues are also tracked in per-document milestones:

   - transport: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/23
   - tls: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/24
   - recovery: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/25
   - invariants: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/26


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