At 5:03 PM -0400 5/30/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >I'm not sure if > > that needs a separate "review netiquette RFC", IMO it should be >> a part of the "Tao", or the next Tao if it is not already clear. > >Paul Hoffman is working on the TAObis. Maybe he can chime in on this. <ching!> The past few editions of the Tao do indeed talk about taking reviews with an open mind. The Tao doesn't talk much about *giving* reviews, mostly because the intended audience (IETF newcomers) are mostly interested in learning how to be in the normal IETF structures, like WGs. Having said that, I agree with some of what Ted Hardie said about the tone of the document. It sounds like there are instructions to document authors on how they are supposed to act when they get reviews. That's bordering on a revision to RFC 2026, which I don't think is what you intended. "It is polite to" and "some document authors like to" are quite different than "are expected to" and "needs to". This document emphasizes reviews going to authors instead of reviews going to WGs or, in the case of individual submissions, reviews going to mailing lists. In the Tao, we emphasize the value of communications to groups so that the group can agree, amplify, show disinterest, or disagree. In the WGs I have co-chaired, the WG got good value out of some of the GenART and SecDir reviews in that it made the whole WG think about the topics brought up. This may be a fundamental difference in view between this document's authors and my preferences, but I think the discussion of where reviewers should be sending their reviews is an important one for the IETF community to have. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf