Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 30 March 2011 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7905A3A6AC7 for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 849XgdZOc6o4 for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F22C3A6A93 for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21253 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2011 22:03:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2011 22:03:07 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=HqovKvQaeBnh9k3TJ5/vpY475RhDzYTAsy20IqTkUK11lPrpxpHGb1zXsKt/sivK8so5oRUtebzjeriv8tN5S1r6sRYrgiO7yEmE5CtXJgR5rTh2b+2JNhv4IpetPvS/;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Q53Pq-0005b1-LP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:59:03 -0600
Message-ID: <4D93A7A2.3010006@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:58:58 +0200
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
References: <A9C46E7F-680F-4541-B496-5ED3FD563E6D@cisco.com> <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews
X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: RSVP directorate <rsvp-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rsvp-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rsvp-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:01:30 -0000

Bruce,
	Your response is reasonable.  I'd still like to hear from the WG chairs
on question 2 though.

Lou

On 3/30/2011 6:36 PM, Bruce Davie wrote:
> 
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
>> Bruce/Dave,
>> 	First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with
>> providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document
>> based on technical review.  But I'm left with a couple of questions:
>>
>> 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of
>> the drafts by the rsvp-dir.  Is this correct?
> 
> I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to get at 2 key issues:
>  - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving?
>  - does it do so in a technically correct way?
> 
> So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess.
> 
>>
>> 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for
>> a document that has gone through the described process?
> 
> David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are looking for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate (which contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is the reason I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers).
> 
> It seems to me that the ADs & Chairs are looking for a pretty large number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape.
> 
> Bruce
> 
>>
>> Much thanks,
>> Lou
>>
>> On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote:
>>> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are:
>>>
>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt
>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt
>>>
>>> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice.
>>>
>>> For the record, I will also review the second draft.
>>>
>>> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers.
>>>
>>> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that.
>>>
>>> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible:
>>> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve?
>>> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard?
>>> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better.
>>> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard?
>>> - What community of users will benefit from this work?
>>>
>>> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. 
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Bruce Davie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rsvp-dir mailing list
>>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>