Hi Russ, Thanks for your response. Some notes inline: On 3/6/2008 4:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Ted, Lakshminath, and the Rest of the IETF Community: > >> I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. > > The handling of reviews by non-IESG members seems to be an important > part of this discussion. I agree and have contributed to that part of the solution, only now I am realizing that it may be becoming part of the problem, so to speak. The concern is that over time it seems to be degenerating into, I will use Ted's phrase here because that is what it feels like, "go satisfy that guy." Consider how it sounds when trying to explain to an outsider: the document is held up in IESG processing because X, who is not an IESG or IAB member, does not like it. I think your own word is "answer" (I have heard "respond") in lieu of "satisfy." Some notes on that below: > So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART > Reviews. Other General ADs may have done things slightly different. > > When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in one > of two categories. > > (1) The Gen-ART Review was ignored. Like any other Last Call comment, > it deserves an answer. So, this is a procedural objection. In this > situation, I've been careful to say that the authors do not need to > accept all of the comments, but then need to answer them. I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was expecting answers all those times. I am pretty sure I have not always stated whether or not the answers are satisfactory. Next, I can imagine an author not wanting to respond to something I may have said because it was totally bogus or inappropriate and does not deserve a response. That might very well happen when I review documents on a topic that I am not familiar with and haven't had the time to read related references (that varies depending on the time available, etc.). Perhaps that is not such a bad thing; being blissfully ignorant on some topics keeps me, well, blissful. I use somewhat of a hyperbole for obvious reasons. I am sure many other situations are much more nuanced. I hope ADs don't continue to hold a DISCUSS in those situations waiting for a dialog to take place or waiting for a consensus to emerge. I sometimes hint in my reviews that the topic may be at the border of my knowledge and if I have a bias. Perhaps that is helpful. regards, Lakshminath > > (2) I agree with one or more concerns raised in the Gen-ART Review that > has not been resolved. I often break the unresolved review comments > into DISCUSS and COMMENT. AD judgement is needed, and I consider the > DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement. > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf