Subject: About Gen-ART reviews

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:33:39 +0100

Hi,

As devoted readers may have noticed, quite a few Gen-ART reviews
have been copied to this list recently, with follow-up postings
in some cases.

Is this a good or a bad thing?

Comments welcome.

     Brian (as General AD)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:14:49 -0500

Brian,

As a recent "victim" of a Gen-ART review, I can only say that it improved
the quality of the RFC-to-be (thanks, Spencer!). And the reviews might
encourage other people to read the draft that might not otherwise had a
chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them coming!

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: "Eric Gray \(LO/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:02:05 -0600

Brian,

	I think it would be a bad thing if it was a general rule.
At the level/frequency applied to date, it's a good thing.

Thanks!

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:34 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: About Gen-ART reviews
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:14:36 -0800

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> As a recent "victim" of a Gen-ART review, I can only say that it 
> improved the quality of the RFC-to-be (thanks, Spencer!). And the 
> reviews might encourage other people to read the draft that might not 
> otherwise had a chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them coming!

This was my experience as well (thanks, Elwyn!).

Eliot

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:39:08 -0800

My experience is that Gen-ART reviews are very useful.  Whether they  
need
to be posted to this list or not is another question.  I think they  
would
be just as useful without the posting, but I like to at least see the
initial review.  I don't think the issues need to be resolved on this
list, however.

Mark

On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> reviews might encourage other people to read the draft that might  
> not otherwise had a chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them  
> coming!
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> On 2/13/07, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked] > wrote: Hi,
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:47 +0100

Mark Baugher schrieb:
> My experience is that Gen-ART reviews are very useful.  Whether they need
> to be posted to this list or not is another question.  I think they would

+1

Optimally, the review should be sent to the mailing list where the 
initial spec development took place, as well (there'll alway be one, and 
in doubt it will be mentioned in the front matter of the document, right 
:-).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:12:53 -0500

I think that Gen-ART reviews should be treated like any other IETF 
Last Call comments.  The reviews themselves are very useful, 
especially when the assignment causes cross-area review.  However, I 
do not think that the reviews carry the same weight as other IETF 
Last Call comments.  As such, ther should be sent to this list or the 
[email-masked] mail list or both.

Russ

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:30:50 -0800

At 4:47 PM +0100 2/13/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
>initial spec development took place, as well (there'll alway be one, 
>and in doubt it will be mentioned in the front matter of the 
>document, right :-).

+.5

A possible rule-of-thumb would be:

If it is all editorial comments, there is no need to sent it to 
[email-masked]. If there are any suggested changes to the protocol / 
requirements / whatever, or if the tone is "I don't understand what 
is going on here", send it to [email-masked] so others can see and 
maybe comment on those suggestions and questions.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:33:44 -0000

Brian,

My view may be no surprise to you.

All reviews (including GenArt) and the subsequent discussions should be 
copied to *some* mailing list so that the whole process is both public and 
archived.

Copying the WG mailing list would be best, but may be a pain because the 
reviewer is not usually subscribed and this may introduce delays while 
postings are authorised (of course, there is nothing to stop the reviewer 
subscribing). Posting to a GenArt-Review mailing list would be less 
acceptable because the I-D authors/editors are not usually able to subscribe 
and would not normally monitor such a list.

The main IETF mailing list is a compromise, but not particularly good as it 
may obscure the other traffic on the list.

Adrian

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:49:46 -0500

On Tuesday, February 13, 2007 08:33:44 PM +0000 Adrian Farrel 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The main IETF mailing list is a compromise, but not particularly good as
> it may obscure the other traffic on the list.

Oh, yes; it would be a shame if discussion of documents in IETF Last Call 
caused someone to miss the latest flamefest.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:09:38 -0800

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> The main IETF mailing list is a compromise, but not particularly good 
> as it may obscure the other traffic on the list.

I think "obscuring" the other traffic on this list with information 
pertinent to the primary purpose of this organization is a good thing.

Eliot