Subject: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 22:49:14 -0800

Hi Claudio, Dave,

Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis from the EAI 
WG.   The assignment is due before December 16.

The review is exceptionally being assigned to two people instead of 
one.  Please review the ABNF too.  If you have any questions about 
the assignment, please post a message to the apps-review mailing list 
or email me.

You can find information about the author and WG in the datatracker ( 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis/ ).  Some 
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 Chairs 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-eai-rfc5336bis-07".

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:00:34 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, SM wrote:

> Hi Claudio, Dave,
>
> Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis from the EAI WG.   The 
> assignment is due before December 16.

ok.

> The review is exceptionally being assigned to two people instead of one. 
> Please review the ABNF too.  If you have any questions about the assignment, 
> please post a message to the apps-review mailing list or email me.

one question very pragmatic: I assume you expect a single review compiled 
by the two of us: correct?   As it applies also to the other couples I 
post it to the list.

best regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:48:51 -0800

On 12/4/2010 1:00 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> one question very pragmatic: I assume you expect a single review compiled by the
> two of us: correct? As it applies also to the other couples I post it to the list.

Seems like (significant) extra work, for no obvious benefit.

I don't see any problem with having more than one review, even if the reviews 
diverge in their views.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:03:04 -0800

Hi Claudio,
At 01:00 04-12-10, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>one question very pragmatic: I assume you expect a single review 
>compiled by the two of us: correct?   As it applies also to the 
>other couples I post it to the list.

The request from the AD was to have the drafts reviewed by team 
members with an email background.  The drafts would also benefit from 
a careful review of the ABNF; hence the selection of at least one 
reviewer with a knowledge of ABNF.

There are two alternatives:

  (a) Have the reviewers coordinate the work and compile one review.

  (b) Each reviewer submits a review.

A joint review requires coordination between the two reviewers and it 
may require further discussion to come up with a common view.  Having 
separate reviews encourages a diversity of views.  There are 
advantages and disadvantages to that.

I left it to each set of reviewers to determine how they wanted to 
get the work done.  The only requirement is that there should be a 
detailed review of the ABNF.

As Dave Crocker does not have any problem with having more than one 
review for draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis, I suggest that you both submit 
separate reviews.  Other reviewers are free to follow whichever of 
the two alternatives they prefer.

Best regards,
-sm

P.S. I did not take on any of the assignments as I have already 
commented on some of the EAI WG drafts.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:32:47 +0000

Dave CROCKER wrote:

>> compiled by the
> I don't see any problem with having more than one review, even if the 
> reviews diverge in their views.

I agree.
I would even prefer independent reviews, i.e. when whoever does the 
review last doesn't look at the first review.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:39:25 -0800

On 12/4/2010 8:32 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I would even prefer independent reviews, i.e. when whoever does the review last
> doesn't look at the first review.

except that the second person will see that they are the slow one...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 17:45:29 +0100 (CET)

> except that the second person will see that they are the slow one...

he he... it is not a race... it's a careful review.

OK, let's stop chatting on a cold windy winter day... and let' start 
reading them.

;-)

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:02:04 -0800

Hi Alexey,
>review last doesn't look at the first review.

This reminds me of the prisoner's dilemma (see RFC 970). :-)

Best regards,
-sm