Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: Comments on draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 10:17:54 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 30. april 2004 13:49 -0500 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>>
...
>> 2. The I-D is unclear about when the review team is actually involved
>>    in doing the document reviews. It says late review. But just for
>>    clarification does it imply post WG last call or IETF last call?
> 
> 
> I was thinking post IETF Last Call, because Last Call comments should 
> form part of the input to the review team, just as for the IESG today.
> Other models are possible. Good point!

And this is a problem in the split model we seem to be evolving,
with some mid-review done by WG-based teams and this very late review
done by cross-area teams.

IMHO cross-area review should be a continuous process, starting at the
draft-authorname-...-00.txt version and continuing until the
draft-ietf-...-99.txt version. The arguments for that opinion
are in the SIRs draft.

We still need to get rid of late surprises.

    Brian

> 
>>
>> 3. If there is consensus by the review team on a document, the IESG
>>    role is quite limited isnt it? Does the IESG have to review the
>>    document even after review team approval? Or does the IESG simply
>>    review the "review team's" notes? From a process efficiency
>>    perspective at least, there is no reason for the IESG to redo the
>>    work done by the review team.
> 
> 
> As I said in the Korea ICAR meeting, I would like to try to first create 
> the function, then move the formal responsibility. In this case, it's 
> likely (I hope) that IESG review could be limited to "writeup looks 
> reasonable, we believe them".
> 
>                      Harald
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
> 

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 09:30:53 -0700

> draft-ietf-...-99.txt version. The arguments for that opinion

trying to depart from the box I put on the table....
would it make sense to move the start of review-team review to (say) 
"publication requested", and only say that the *end* of review is 
constrained to be after Last Call?
Would also give reviewers more time.....

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 10:51:26 +0200

> Would also give reviewers more time.....

Yes, makes sense. Of course the I-D version number may increase during
that time.

     Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 08:48:48 -0700

Brian,

BEC> And this is a problem in the split model we seem to be evolving,
BEC> with some mid-review done by WG-based teams and this very late review
BEC> done by cross-area teams.

   WG-based teams can, and will, get reviews from folks with diverse
   expertise.  Reviewers working for area directors do not have a corner
   on the supply of cross-area reviewers.

   In other words, you are correct that there needs to be a continuing
   process of reviewing from different perspectives.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>