Re: IONs & discuss criteria

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Speaking only as a Gen-ART reviewer, what Russ said is how I think it works, 
and Ted's concern that I might be privileged as a Gen-ART reviewer at last 
call time is the reason we're having that conversation.

Gen-ART reviewers have had that concern since we were writing reviews for 
Harald. We don't WANT to be privileged, and we've worked consistently to 
head that off.

I provided this text that's in the Gen-ART FAQ: 'And always remember that 
the IESG ballot position is called "DISCUSS", not "IMPERIAL EDICT" or 
"BLACKMAIL"'.

This should be doubly so, when a review team reviewer raised a concern.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Russ Housley" <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Ted:
>
>> >I really disagree.  Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
>> >
>> >    I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>> >    reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> >    _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
>> >
>> >    Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
>> > comments
>> >    you may receive.
>> >
>> >This tells the recipients that the review fits exactly the role you
>> >describe above.
>>
>>But your behavior does not tell the recipient that.  If they were
>>being treated as general Last Call comments, it would be up to
>>the shepherd and sponsoring AD to resolve them, not up to
>>the General Area AD.  That leaves one set of people on the hook
>>for making sure they are done and deciding when they are,
>>and it is the same set no matter how the Last Call comment
>>is generated.  Your mechanism privileges one set
>>over others (in that they are more likely to be held as blocking
>>until resolved), is likely to be slower (since yet another busy person
>>must be informed that something is resolved, and may miss it
>>when it was),  and does not encourage things to push earlier than
>>Last Call (which is the opportunity I think you're missing).
>
> I disagree with this characterization.
>
> IETF Last Call (hopefully) generates comments.  These are usually
> resolved before IESG Evaluation, which is what you advocate in your
> note.  This is the normal case in my experience.  The issue seems to
> come up when they are not resolved.  As I said in my previous note,
> there are two cases.
>
> (1)  The Gen-ART Review or other Last Call comments were ignored.  If
> someone takes the time to review the document at Last Call, they
> deserve the respect of a response.  Failure to respond is a
> procedural objection.  This is usually handled by the PROTO Shepherd,
> WG Chair, or document author.  If by the time the document reaches
> IESG Evaluation, I have put a DISCUSS on documents to ensure that a
> response does happen. (I did not say that the comments are accepted;
> I said that a response is provided.)  I have entered DISCUSS
> positions like this for Gen-ART Reviews, SecDir Reviews, and reviews
> from individual IETF participants.  I've been careful to say that the
> authors do not need to accept all of the comments, but then need to
> answer them.
>
> (2)  I agree with one or more concerns raised in the Last Call
> comments that was not resolved.  Thus, a very  often a very small
> portion of last Call comments become blocking comments.  I tend to
> break the unresolved review comments into DISCUSS and COMMENT, giving
> credit to the source of the review.  (I'm not trying to take credit
> for someone else's work.)  AD judgement is needed here, and I
> consider the DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement.
>
> Russ 


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]