Subject: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-geopriv-policy

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:01:55 -0700

Hi Martin,

Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy before 
September 9, 2010.  The request is being assigned to you.  You can 
find information about the author and WG in the datatracker ( 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy/ 
).  Previous reviews from the Apps-review Team are accessible at 
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template

The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the author, WG Chair and 
document shepherd, if applicable, and the IESG.  The subject of the 
email when submitting the review should be "apps-team review of 
draft-ietf-geopriv-policy".

Thanks,
-sm

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:21:50 +0900

Hello SM, others,

On 2010/09/02 9:01, SM wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy before September
> 9, 2010. The request is being assigned to you.

Sorry for dropping the ball on this one. I should be able to do a review 
this week, sending it off by the 16th. Is that still worth it?

> You can find information
> about the author and WG in the datatracker (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy/ ).

I have looked at this. It has a very long history. It seems to have gone 
into the IESG both in 2007 and in 2009. I'm sure I won't be able to take 
all this into account.

There also seems to be a problem with the tracker, in that the tracker 
doesn't seem to be able to handle multiple rounds of IESG discussion.

> Previous
> reviews from the Apps-review Team are accessible at

I read "Previous reviews" as "all previous reviews", and expected a 
list. I see there are links to some reviews in the second paragraph. 
That's okay for me, but I'd suggest changing the text of this mail to
"Some previous reviews".

Regards,    Martin.

> document shepherd, if applicable, and the IESG. The subject of the email
> when submitting the review should be "apps-team review of

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:49:10 -0700

Hi Martin,
At 21:21 14-09-10, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>Sorry for dropping the ball on this one. I 
>should be able to do a review this week, sending 
>it off by the 16th. Is that still worth it?

According to the tracker, the draft hasn't 
completed IESG evaluation.  It would be good if 
you could get the review out before the 16th.

>I have looked at this. It has a very long 
>history. It seems to have gone into the IESG 
>both in 2007 and in 2009. I'm sure I won't be 
>able to take all this into account.

There are two existing DISCUSSes for this draft.

>There also seems to be a problem with the 
>tracker, in that the tracker doesn't seem to be 
>able to handle multiple rounds of IESG discussion.

I see the state change for Lisa that was done on 
January 20, 2010.  Alexey may know more about 
whether the position logged are up to date.

>I read "Previous reviews" as "all previous 
>reviews", and expected a list. I see there are 
>links to some reviews in the second paragraph. 

Thanks, I'll fix that.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:09:55 +0100

SM wrote:

>> Sorry for dropping the ball on this one. I should be able to do a 
>> review this week, sending it off by the 16th. Is that still worth it?
>
Yes. I think you have time till the end of this month to review it.

> According to the tracker, the draft hasn't completed IESG evaluation.

Indeed.

> It would be good if you could get the review out before the 16th.
>
>> I have looked at this. It has a very long history. It seems to have 
>> gone into the IESG both in 2007 and in 2009. I'm sure I won't be able 
>> to take all this into account.
>
Martin, you don't need to do such a comprehensive review - doing 
detailed review is IESG's job. Peter and I only need to check the 
document for any typical Apps issues. Of course doing a more detailed 
review would be Ok with us, but this is not a requirement.

>> There also seems to be a problem with the tracker, in that the 
>> tracker doesn't seem to be able to handle multiple rounds of IESG 
>> discussion.
>
It should be able to. What is the problem?

> I see the state change for Lisa that was done on January 20, 2010.  
> Alexey may know more about whether the position logged are up to date.
>