Subject: General Comment on AD Review or IESG Review

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:32:35 +0200

Hi

Just small comment on the AD review, and to show my expectation. I
hope to know your expectations of reviews. If we know the expectations
of the community we will progress better.

I expect that the AD review overviews all I-D pieces and also all the
WG participants input within the WGLC. IMHO, I don't expect that the
AD just uses participants input without refering to such input/piece.
We need connected pieces, not disconnected because the review is for
one work I-D.

I expect that IESG review overviews all I-D pieces and also the IETF
participants input within the IETF Last Call. We need connected
pieces, not disconnected because the review is for one work I-D.

I like to make my review connected and disconnected to other people's
ideas other pieces of work.

AB
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This message is not sent to private address, this is only sent to
IETF. However, the author accepts private or public replies as long it
is respectful.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 06:40:50 +0200

Connecting ideas related to the same I-D is not an easy task, usually
reviewers just do their own review without reading others. I try to
read all reviews (if time is available) or input related to I-D to
connect ideas to help in better my review results or quality.

 I recommend that such connection/coordination of reviews should be
done in the IETF-Area level for WGLC-reviews and AD-review, and then
done in the IESG level for ietf-reviews and editors-reply. This way
the final review for the Area and for the IESG will get better
results.

When we work as a team we will be connecting good ideas (may include
cross areas) to get to the best quality and final team work idea.

AB