IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] timing of reviews

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 24 May 2013 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 B225221F9670 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5CvYhZMzdf7B for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001F021F965B for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B082CC53; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:59:12 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8jnnWl9_x3Sf; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:59:11 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32B52CC48; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:59:11 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <67FEC0F2-9C17-4CCA-B41C-85FCB40E59E7@vpnc.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:59:11 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D8F42545-7218-468D-AB6B-9D7116F35DA6@piuha.net>
References: <5E0AD376-F965-40AE-82E4-667D16E8313A@piuha.net> <519F2EBD.1030408@cs.tcd.ie> <20895.23252.179339.686278@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <519F5D63.4000206@cs.tcd.ie> <519F7486.9030002@gmail.com> <67FEC0F2-9C17-4CCA-B41C-85FCB40E59E7@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [secdir] 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: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:59:23 -0000

I feel bad about getting you guys all disagree with each other :-)

But back to substance. There are obvious situations where WGLC is done on a document that is far from ready. It comes as a surprise, or the WG chairs are doing it on purpose to solicit reviews that do not appear to be forthcoming otherwise. While early help with half-finished documents can be useful, I don't think we should waste secdir, Gen-ART, etc. reviewer's time on it at that point. When we talked about this in the IESG, it was brought up that the WG chairs should be involved in the decision to call for review. I agree with that. There are details to think about, however. Perhaps we can request review only for docs that the chairs believe are well baked, and use the old process for others, for instance.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email