Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement (Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement) to Informational RFC

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

 



Since someone asked about this, I wanted to clarify why and how new versions of this draft are being posted while the last call is going on. The document has been revised once in order to address two very minor details left over from the first round of my AD review (IMO not blocking issues), and a second time to address feedback from other reviewers (I think). There will future revisions, we just saw a review from Joel Halpern that appears to require a small change, for instance.

There are a couple of different ways of doing this in the IETF, but my personal model is to ask the authors to address feedback as soon as it becomes known -- even during last call. We should of course always carefully evaluate whether the feedback leads to document changes -- not all feedback does. At times we are even a bit too eager to please the reviewer in the IETF. But in my mind, if we end up deciding that something is missing or wrong, I think it is beneficial to everyone that the document is updated in a timely manner. As a reviewer I do not like to re-discover the same bugs that others have already found, and as an IESG reviewer I appreciate that I can see that issues from last call reviews were addressed. I think these benefits outweigh the cost of having a bit of a moving target.

(As a side note, all this would be more fun if the last call e-mails held a stable tools URL rather than point to the current version: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement)

Jari

_______________________________________________
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]