On 08/04/2015 04:19, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
Thank you all for your valuable help and guidance.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com
<mailto:randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> I volunteered to review a draft during the last meeting in Dallas. As
> this is my first time, I'd like to get any advice about the most
> effective way to do this:
focus on the technology, it's correctness, and how well and clearly it
is described. forget the processes, use whatever tools suit you, the
datatracker will keep track of diffs as the author(s) hack, and
you can
report your review via email.
> I'm probably over-thinking this
you are. but doing so seems to be a vital skill in the ietf :)
+1
You can find lots of examples of reviews (and how comments get resolved
- or not - sometimes it's a matter of opinion!) in the various IETF
mailing list archives:
Reviews from 'directorates' done towards the end of the process - forget
the process and feel the comments:
'Generalist' reviews trying to make sure that people other than subject
matter experts will be able to make good use of RFCs:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/maillist.html
Reviews by area 'experts' not originally involved in writing the draft
(e.g., security in this case):
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/maillist.html
And examples of comments on specific drafts by WG participants in pretty
much any WG mailing list archive: http://datatracker.ietf.org/list/wg/
Again, thanks for volunteering.
Cheers,
Elwyn