[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-09 08:46:35

It's a fair thing to say that the ADs need to see a response.  I 
also agree that cross-area review is important and at times unearths 
issues that may not have been raised in WG-level 
reviews.  Personally, I prefer cross-area reviews to take place 
prior to the LC process and hope that the the LC process is for 
those issues that may have been really overlooked despite the best 
efforts of the WG chairs and ADs.

I do not however quite understand the idea that we have to get 
consensus in the context of each GenART/Sec-dir/<fill-in-the-blank> 
review.  It is of course quite plausible that one or two of those 
reviewers will never be satisfied with any level of revision of a 
given specification.  In other cases, it may be that the reviewer 
has his or her personal preference on how to write documents and 
will never come out and say that the document they reviewed is "ready."

I think you completely misunderstand my point.  A reviewer can make a 
comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree.  This is 
important for an AD to see.  The AD now needs to figure out whether 
the reviewer is in the rough part of the rough consensus or whether 
the reviewer is representative of a larger part of the community.  If 
the review is ignored, then the AD get no indication that further 
investigation is needed.

I have winced when some authors wrote to me after a review saying 
something along the lines of "does the following revised text sound 
better."  I would have been merely pointing out something I thought 
was not clear or might cause interoperability issues that they may 
have overlooked or missed.  How they might fix it is entirely up to 
them (or the ADs involved).  If their take was that they considered 
the comment and thought what they wrote is much more meaningful in 
the context of their work or the interoperability issue I raised 
does not apply within the scope of their specification, well so be 
it.  Next, I trust them to do that.  I don't need to see a 
dialog.  I am willing to clarify my comments, and if I cannot 
articulate the issues I am raising clearly, well then the document 
needs to move on in the process.

In the example you give, I think the response is good as it ensures 
that the comment was understood.

Either the shepherding AD or the AD who solicited the review needs 
to determine what if anything specific needs to be done in all these 
cases.  They are the judges of consensus.  No matter who the 
reviewer might be they were not selected by the community to do the AD's job.

True.  As you have heard from Tim and me, these reviews are very 
helpful to the ADs, and I am saying that the discussion that follows 
such a review is helpful in judging consensus.

Creating an environment where all these additional reviews and 
reviewers essentially block document progress is not the right direction.

I agree, and requiring a response to the review is substantially 
different than blocking a document.  The alternative is silence, and 
silence cannot aid in judging consensus.


IETF mailing list

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