On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:13:58PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now, I don't know how to incentivize the wider community to provide > > interim reviews. Reviewing I-Ds is really time-consuming and energy > > sapping for me personally -- the biggest problem is making the time and > > finding a way to get it funded when it's a lot of time. > > This is why I wanted to have the list of structured reviews encoded in the > XML so that the datatracker and rfc-editor pages could at least provide a > kudos here. Yes, certainly better tooling for review formalism will help. So if I am asked to review draft-ietf-foowg-xyz-11 and I can see that there was an interim review at -07, I can start by reading that review, then reading -11, then examining the differences between -07 and -11. Moreover, recording the review history, complete with links to mailing list archives (even if review were to happen in github or similar, provided we have notifications go to an IETF list, then we can use that as the record), in the datatracker, will greatly help anyone doing RFC archeology later on. Nico --
