Re: Formal Document Review

William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu> Thu, 29 December 1994 15:57 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02754; 29 Dec 94 10:57 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02750; 29 Dec 94 10:57 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08839; 29 Dec 94 10:57 EST
Received: from merit.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA22393>; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 07:19:18 -0800
Received: from Bill.Simpson.DialUp.Mich.Net (pm012-21.dialip.mich.net [35.1.48.222]) by merit.edu (8.6.9/merit-2.0) with SMTP id KAA25433 for <rreq@ISI.EDU>; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:19:16 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 94 13:48:46 GMT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
Message-Id: <3595.bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
To: rreq@isi.edu
Reply-To: bsimpson@morningstar.com
Subject: Re: Formal Document Review

> From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
> > 	Was there any discussion about how to review Fred's document?
> > If not, any ideas?  It would seem like a good idea to have some level
> > of community by-in on the new document since it is to become a standards
> > track document.
> >
>
> 	Scott Bradner forwarded this excellent sugestion.
>
> 	Ideas on how to review this document are encouraged.
>
We have had some luck in the past with a Chapter by Chapter review, with
say a week or two for each.

Some of our chapters haven't changed in some time, so we could just note
that and move on.

There have to be fairly strict rules about not looking forward or
backward, except to resolve cross references.  Otherwise, the
examination degenerates.  But it can work, given strong leadership.

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu