Subject: Re: [Gen-art] RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:11:22 -0700 (PDT)

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think there is no realistic chance [ ... ] of asking all
> generalist reviewers to be aware of what MIB Doctors look for in
> detail.

Just in case it was not clear, I was not suggesting that.  But I do
think it would be reasonable would be for the generalists to be
aware of what's in Section 3, "General Documentation Guidelines", of
RFC 4181, so that we all are on the same page about issues such as
standard boilerplate, treatment of references, and the like.  It was
a conflicting comment on one these points that started this
discussion, after all.  The burden is not too great -- the section
is only 6 1/2 pages long.  I see that the gen-art review guidelines
(http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html)
already say that "the review should apply generally agreed IETF
criteria ... as well as any other applicable architectural or
procedural documents", so it does not seem to me that I am
suggesting anything out of line.

Thanks,

Mike Heard

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:43:19 +0200

Absolutely. I'm going to suggest some suitable words to add to
the gen-ART guidelines, unless someone beats me to it.

    Brian