Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Gosh, I hadn't thought about recording a link to the review.
I just wanted to give kudos. Recording a link to the review is a great idea,
and deals with some of the question of who gets a acknowledgement and who
doesn't.
> 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.
+1
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
