Subject: [apps-review] Review of EAI documents by the Apps Review Team

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:23:25 -0800

Hello,

First of all, I would like to thank Claudio Allocchio, Dave Crocker, 
Eliot Lear, Murray Kucherawy and Ted Hardie for reviewing EAI 
documents.  These comments are not specifically about the EAI documents.

It is up to the Review Team Lead to assign reviews.  The assignments 
are rotated to spread the work unless a particular expertise is 
required for the review.  In some cases, the Apps ADs may suggest a 
list of possible reviewers; they leave it to the Review Team Lead to 
select the reviewers.

The EAI documents were reviewed independently by each 
reviewer.  There was some off-list discussion about how to coordinate 
the work.  As one of our tasks is also to help the Apps ADs, we may 
discuss a review with them if we think that there are significant 
issues that should be brought to their immediate attention.

 From my short experience as Review Team Lead, the Apps ADs do not 
set any restrictions on reviews; i.e. what the review can or cannot 
say.  I may provide private feedback if the reviewer asks me.  The 
latest batch of reviews raised the question of whether a review 
should be strictly technical.  I personally prefer not to limit what 
goes into a review as long as it follows IETF practices.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:12:01 -0800

On 12/22/2010 3:23 PM, SM wrote:
> The EAI documents were reviewed independently by each reviewer. There was some
> off-list discussion about how to coordinate the work.

Just to emphasize SM's point, and possibly to encourage re-use of the model for 
later reviews that are expected to raise challenges to the working group:

      Each of us did our independent reviews /privately/.  We shared them /only/ 
after we had completed our first round of writing.

      We then discussed the reviews with each other.  This was an open free-for 
all.  The purpose of discussing our initial reviews privately, before 
circulating them to the working group, was to permit us to clarify our 
observations, both in terms of the details and in terms of the language. To the 
extent that we developed similar points, in different language, we explored the 
similarities and differences, to make sure we understood each other -- and 
possibly to correct misunderstandings. If a review might present a challenge to 
the working group, it helps to put this kind of effort into "packaging" it as 
helpfully as possible.  In effect, this was like a design team effort, except 
each review still owned the review they offered.

      For reference, no one had "authority" in the discussion; they merely had 
their own views.

The AD's authority concerned logistics to coordinate the handling of the 
reviews, but not about the content.  (On the other hand, he has a background in 
the topic and was an active participant in the discussion, of course.)

>  From my short experience as Review Team Lead, the Apps ADs do not set any
> restrictions on reviews; i.e. what the review can or cannot say. I may provide
> private feedback if the reviewer asks me. The latest batch of reviews raised the
> question of whether a review should be strictly technical.

SM, I cannot match this concern to anything I saw during the review process. 
Can you explain what "non-technical" issues might have been a concern?

Thanks.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:10:43 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 10:12 23-12-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>Just to emphasize SM's point, and possibly to encourage re-use of 
>the model for later reviews that are expected to raise challenges to 
>the working group:

Thanks for providing an insight on the model we used.

>SM, I cannot match this concern to anything I saw during the review 
>process. Can you explain what "non-technical" issues might have been a concern?

It's not directly related to the review of the EAI documents.

Sometimes we might be reviewing a document which is more about IETF 
process than a particular technology.  There is one such review that 
is currently assigned.  While reviewing the usage of a technology, we 
might be of the opinion that it raises privacy issues.  I'll label 
such issues as strictly non-technical for simplicity.  It can be 
argued that they are or are not within the purview of the Apps Review Team.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:38:11 -0800

On 12/23/2010 10:10 PM, SM wrote:
> Sometimes we might be reviewing a document which is more about IETF process than
> a particular technology. There is one such review that is currently assigned.
> While reviewing the usage of a technology, we might be of the opinion that it
> raises privacy issues.

ahh.  ok.  thanks for the clarification.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker