Subject: Re: [newtrk] "Reviewed in the IETF" (was: Re: Document Action: 'US Secure ...

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:16:28 -0500 (EST)

Spencer opines
> I'm just a lot more comfortable with the idea that anything that gets 
> "reviewed in the IETF" gets "last-called in the IETF", and that anything 
> that doesn't get "last-called in the IETF" would list specific reviewers, 
> rather than spreading the credit/blame in all directions.

I, for 1, fully agree

Scott
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:25:33 +0100

>>rather than spreading the credit/blame in all directions.

Hopefully, the comments in the tracker will indicate who has reviewed
the document. As in:

Working Group Summary

   This is an Individual submission.  No IETF Working Group was involved.

Protocol Quality

   This document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG.

In this particular case, since

   Most of the text in the document was adapted by the authors from
   FIPS 180-2.

last-calling would have been a bit over the top IMHO.

     Brian

.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:39:46 -0800

>> rather than spreading the credit/blame in all directions.

I agree; if the IESG is doing the review for conflicts with IETF WGs,
then the IESG should be specifically attributed, not the whole of the IETF.

(contrary to the beliefs of some, the IESG is not the IETF)

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:12:01 +0100

> (contrary to the beliefs of some, the IESG is not the IETF)

No, but its' *in* the IETF.

    Brian

.