Re: [secdir] Fwd: timing of reviews

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Tero

That's useful info about the mechanics.

Also good to know you reckon WGLC might be a feasible
time for secdir reviews.

Others?

Cheers,
S.

On 05/24/2013 01:19 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> 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).
>