Re: [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 10 July 2013 13:00 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B29711E81A2 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id siJJe6DT6+3a for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC8511E8167 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41470BEB3 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:59:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0PKvt7lbfJOe for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:59:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:955f:61fb:179d:3ebe] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:955f:61fb:179d:3ebe]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FCAEBE8A for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:59:14 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <51DD5AA2.7060108@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:59:14 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
References: <5E0AD376-F965-40AE-82E4-667D16E8313A@piuha.net> <519F2EBD.1030408@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <519F2EBD.1030408@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:00:18 -0000
Hi folks, Coming back to this topic and thanks for the feedback. This is on as a management item for tomorrow's IESG telechat. The IESG won't be putting in place any new rule or dictat then but we'll try to move things along some. I plan to say the following: "Secdir reviewers expressed a willingness to carry out reviews at WGLC time where a specific request from the relevant WG chair is made. We'd like to try this out for a bit with some drafts and see how it goes for a few months and not immediately start getting review requests for everything at WGLC. If WG chairs select "more baked" drafts for this it may work better. If a WG chair asks for a review for a document that's really not ready for secdir then a "not baked" review may well be the sole response. (We do understand that starting a WGLC on a not-yet-baked draft is a valid thing for a WG chair to do sometimes, but those are maybe not good drafts for which to ask for a secdir review.) Given that the hit-rate for secdir reviews is about 80% WG chairs should understand that there's a roughly 20% chance that they won't get a secdir review, and there's a chance that the review might not be received before the end of WGLC, but that's still leaves a good probabailty of getting a very useful and timely review. For now, the simplest mechanics for this are for the WG chair to mail sec-ads@ietf.org, cc'ing secdir-secretary@mit.edu and asking that draft-foo, which is starting WGLC, be put into the secdir review rotation." There's no need to wordsmith that since its not a formal statement of anything, but if there are any major issues it'd be great to hear about those today/tomorrow. And since we'll work it out as we go anyway, there's no need to panic:-) Cheers and thanks again for all the continuing good work, S. On 05/24/2013 10:11 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Folks, > > Jari's mail below says it better than I could. > > What do you think about this? > > Thanks, > S. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: timing of reviews > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 01:28:48 +0300 > From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> > To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org> > CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > > Thanks again for all your hard work in doing the reviews. They make it > possible for me to concentrate on reviewing just those documents where > there are problems or I have deeper expertise. And the quality of the > protocol specifications coming out of the IETF is obviously very > important, particularly for protocols that are gaining significant use. > > As you may have seen, the IESG and the community has been wondering if > there'd be something that we could do about the IETF process, in the > sense that there's quite many things happening at the very end of the > document's life cycle. This results in some surprises, and often also > moves some important decisions out of the working group and to > author/shepherd/AD hands. A while ago we met for the IESG retreat and > wanted to experiment with three specific changes: > > - sending work back to the WGs when significant changes are needed, and > making the WG the central place of the edits > - moving some directorate reviews earlier, without impact reviewer > effort too much > - inviting some of the shepherds onto tele chats > > I am writing to you in order to discuss the second item. How big of a > change would it be to have Gen-ART reviews be invoked during WGLC, while > the documents are still in the working groups? The goal of the reviews > would still be the same, e.g., I would be checking that the reviews were > positive and/or that the issues brought up have been properly addressed. > > There are important details to consider, however, and I would like to > get your feedback on how you would seem them having an effect, and what > would be the best way to organise this, if we decide to go ahead with > the change for the Gen-ART. > > Triggering the review would have to be done by something else than IETF > last call announcement. Is the best approach is to have the WG chairs > manually request for this? Note that sometimes there are multiple WGLCs. > I presume that it would be preferable to have a Gen-ART review be done > only once at this stage, as otherwise the work load would increase. The > chairs may have some idea of whether they are likely to need another > WGLC before they start one. > > There may be possibly bigger changes and time lag between the first > Gen-ART review and the one that checks that the changes are ok. > > Some specs may not make it through WGLC, and a review at that stage may > increase the effort you guys are putting in, by reviewing those specs > that will fail. > > Jari > > > > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > secdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir > wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview > >
- Re: [secdir] timing of reviews Paul Hoffman
- [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews Stephen Farrell
- [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews Tero Kivinen
- Re: [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] timing of reviews Jari Arkko
- Re: [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] timing of reviews Yoav Nir
- Re: [secdir] timing of reviews Jari Arkko
- Re: [secdir] timing of reviews Paul Hoffman
- Re: [secdir] timing of reviews Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews Stephen Farrell