[secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Fri, 24 May 2013 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
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 EFD3421F967F for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, 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 vcVOdLC9NVhm for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.kivinen.iki.fi [IPv6:2001:1bc8:100d::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21FA21F9679 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 05:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4OCJXUx004660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 15:19:33 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.7/8.12.11) id r4OCJWfk020301; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:19:32 +0300 (EEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <20895.23252.179339.686278@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:19:32 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <519F2EBD.1030408@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <5E0AD376-F965-40AE-82E4-667D16E8313A@piuha.net> <519F2EBD.1030408@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 24.3.1
X-Edit-Time: 30 min
X-Total-Time: 31 min
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: [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: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:21:03 -0000

Stephen Farrell writes:
> Jari's mail below says it better than I could.
> 
> What do you think about this?

I think one of the problems is that lately the IETF LC end time, and
Telechat have been VERY close to each other. There are lots of
documents coming in lately, where the IETF last call end date and the
telechat date are same (for example draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt
in last assignment) or there has been only one or two weeks between
them (draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks, draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6
in last assignment).

This makes it so that if reviewer finds some problems, there is no
time to fix them before telechat. It used to be so that there was much
bigger difference between the IETF LC and Telechat, and in that case
there was even useful to do re-review at telechat time. Now there is
no point to assign document to be re-reviewd at telechat time, as it
was reviewed week or two earlier in the IETF LC time. 

> 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.

That would make it easier to address bigger issues, especially as the
WG would at that point be more wiling to change things. Sometimes it
seems that suggesting some bigger changes week or two before the
telechat time, is not going to be accepted well by the document
authors.

> 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.

The review tool currently takes the
http://datatracker.ietf.org/feed/last-call/ rss feed and uses that to
find the last calls. If there would be similar feed for WGLCs that
would work fine from the tool point of view (I am not sure if there is
anything like that now).

We would still need to follow IETF last call status as not all
documents go through WGLC.

The review tool already supports quite easy way for secretary to add
new documents to the list, i.e. WG can request earlier review and the
document will be added to the tool for review at that point. The
review tool also supports delegating the permission to add new
documents to the review queue, so area-directors or selected members
of the review team could add documents themselves.

The next question would be how many reviews we need. Currently we
officially do two, one for IETF LC, and re-review at telechat time,
but quite often there is no need to do the second review: reviewer
already said document is ready, or his changes were already done. In
those case I will not re-assign it for re-review (I usually do check
the diffs between the last reviewed version and current version).
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi