[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 18:00:29
Hi Russ,

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>