On 2008-03-11 03:42, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted:
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
This tells the recipients that the review fits exactly the role you
describe above.
But your behavior does not tell the recipient that. If they were
being treated as general Last Call comments, it would be up to
the shepherd and sponsoring AD to resolve them, not up to
the General Area AD. That leaves one set of people on the hook
for making sure they are done and deciding when they are,
and it is the same set no matter how the Last Call comment
is generated. Your mechanism privileges one set
over others (in that they are more likely to be held as blocking
until resolved), is likely to be slower (since yet another busy person
must be informed that something is resolved, and may miss it
when it was), and does not encourage things to push earlier than
Last Call (which is the opportunity I think you're missing).
I disagree with this characterization.
IETF Last Call (hopefully) generates comments. These are usually
resolved before IESG Evaluation, which is what you advocate in your
note. This is the normal case in my experience.
FWIW, that's my experience as General AD too - I left the handling
of LC reviews to the responsible people, but I certainly looked back
to check that they had been responded to, when the draft reached the
IESG.
I believe that one reason for this apparent disagreement is a missing
tool: an IETF-wide system for logging Last Call comments (including
reviews) on each draft that's in Last Call. The last time we discussed
this, we ended up slightly tuning the text of the Last Call message,
to say
" Please send substantive comments to the
ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by <date>. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. "
But that just dumps comments into a messy email archive, at best.
I'd really like to see a more organised tool for this, and perhaps
some more precision about when a comment to the IESG alone is
appropriate.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf