Thanks for your response. Some notes inline:
On 3/6/2008 4:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted, Lakshminath, and the Rest of the IETF Community:
I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game.
The handling of reviews by non-IESG members seems to be an important
part of this discussion.
I agree and have contributed to that part of the solution, only now I am
realizing that it may be becoming part of the problem, so to speak. The
concern is that over time it seems to be degenerating into, I will use
Ted's phrase here because that is what it feels like, "go satisfy that
guy." Consider how it sounds when trying to explain to an outsider: the
document is held up in IESG processing because X, who is not an IESG or
IAB member, does not like it.
I think your own word is "answer" (I have heard "respond") in lieu of
"satisfy." Some notes on that below:
So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART
Reviews. Other General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in one
of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review was ignored. Like any other Last Call comment,
it deserves an answer. So, this is a procedural objection. In this
situation, I've been careful to say that the authors do not need to
accept all of the comments, but then need to answer them.
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was expecting answers
all those times. I am pretty sure I have not always stated whether or
not the answers are satisfactory.
Next, I can imagine an author not wanting to respond to something I may
have said because it was totally bogus or inappropriate and does not
deserve a response. That might very well happen when I review documents
on a topic that I am not familiar with and haven't had the time to read
related references (that varies depending on the time available, etc.).
Perhaps that is not such a bad thing; being blissfully ignorant on
some topics keeps me, well, blissful. I use somewhat of a hyperbole for
obvious reasons. I am sure many other situations are much more nuanced.
I hope ADs don't continue to hold a DISCUSS in those situations
waiting for a dialog to take place or waiting for a consensus to emerge.
I sometimes hint in my reviews that the topic may be at the border of
my knowledge and if I have a bias. Perhaps that is helpful.
(2) I agree with one or more concerns raised in the Gen-ART Review that
has not been resolved. I often break the unresolved review comments
into DISCUSS and COMMENT. AD judgement is needed, and I consider the
DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement.
IETF mailing list