Subject: [Icar] early review consensus (part 1)

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 08:11:45 -0400

In reading through everyone's thoughts from the last week, I want to
assert that we have a decent amount of consensus on the following
notions...

  * ICAR-type reviews should be openly published (on the WG list at a
    minimum)

  * ICAR-type reviews are not binding on WGs -- i.e., just because a
    reviewer says "you should do X" doesn't mean the WG is obligated to
    do so (i.e., reviewers do not have veto power)

  * WGs should be obligated to consider and discuss each suggestion from
    the reviewer's comments

I meant to leave out specifics from the above list for now.  What I'd
like to do is to ensure that we do, in fact, have pretty good agreement
on the notions first.  Please yell if you think one of the above items
is off-base from what folks have argued for.

Thanks,
allman

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:43:41 +0200

Hi,

Since I didn't chime in last week, I'll do so now.

>   * WGs should be obligated to consider and discuss each suggestion from

Yes, I agree with all of the above.

Thanks for summarizing.

David

- -- 
GPG key: http://standards.ericsson.net/partain/partain.asc

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