Subject: IESG last call comments

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:03:56 +0200

As a document shepherd, I am concerned at the way comments get made and
recorded in the IESG last call.

Firstly, for comments made by IETF participants, I now have to go
trawling through the [email-masked] list. The IESG review results in
comments being made in the draft tracker itself.

We also seem to have comments made as part of various reviews, e.g.
security directorate and gen-art, which formally are part of the IESG
last call when made at that time. These do not seem to be sent to
[email-masked], nor are they recorded in the draft tracker. Sometimes the
document shepherd happens to receive a copy of these comments directly
if they are lucky.

So in summary, we seem to have comments in the IESG LC that:

-	get spread around multiple locations
-	sometimes do not adequately get recorded as made, or indeed
addressed.

I would like to understand what the proper existing process is for all
these comments, and then address what we need to do to improve things.

Regards

Keith

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:23:56 +0100

Like he said.

I believe there are plans to let the Doc Shep make entries in the status 
tracker to record comments and resolutions. I can't wait for that.

And the process for making sure the Doc Shep gets copied on comments and 
reviews is improving.

But there are still holes.

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: IESG last call comments

Regards

Keith

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:03:10 +0200

Why not just attach a complete record of all comments from the ietf list 
that have a  subject of "Last call: draft-so-and-so.. to"?  Particularly 
during the last call period?

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:33:59 -0500

> during the last call period?

If this proposal includes summary execution for people who don't change the 
subject field when they change topics, I'd support that in a heartbeat :-)

There's still a need for further moderation and summarization, but step one 
is definitely not LOSING some of the comments.

(Also responding directly to Keith's posting)

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:46:40 -0500

Hi, Keith,

Just for background (I know you know the following, but maybe not everyone 
else does)...

Two things have changed since Harald formed Gen-ART -

- we've started doing reviews at IETF Last Call time, mostly because getting 
the PIM spec the week before it's on the telechat is cruel and unusual 
punishment for reviewers, editors, chairs and ADs, and

- we've stopped doing editorial reviews, now focusing only on technical 
points, but if we see editorial corrections we also provide them (although 
they aren't part of the Gen-ART review comments).

We've trained Harald, and then Brian, and then Russ to expect that if a 
Gen-ART reviewer looks at a document, the reviewer will say so in SOME way, 
but if the review is either "looks perfect" or "here are the nits", at least 
some reviewers are reluctant to send this to the IETF mailing list.

These reviews ARE sent to 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html, so if you check there, 
you should see any Gen-ART reviews for your document (both IETF Last Call 
reviews and IESG Telechat reviews).

The fun part is what happens next, when editors start saying "OK, what about 
THIS text". Those conversations seem to end up under lots of rocks. On 
Gen-ART mailing list (http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews)? On IETF 
mailing list? On WG mailing list? in private e-mail? On some combination of 
these choices?

If we had clear expectations, knowing where to look for Gen-ART reviews 
would be easier.

Spencer, who just noticed that Gen-ART is still homed on Harald's personal 
server :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:03 AM
Subject: IESG last call comments

Regards

Keith

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:26:47 -0400

>>>>> "DRAGE," == DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <[email-masked]> writes:
    DRAGE,> reviews, e.g.  security directorate and gen-art, which
    DRAGE,> formally are part of the IESG last call when made at that
    DRAGE,> time. These do not seem to be sent to [email-masked], nor
    DRAGE,> are they recorded in the draft tracker. Sometimes the
    DRAGE,> document shepherd happens to receive a copy of these
    DRAGE,> comments directly if they are lucky.

The security reviews at least ought to go to [email-masked].

---

From: "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:04:34 +0200

Hi Sam, 
as a member of the Security Directorate, I must say that your statement
is not correct. The Security Directorate Instructions page only states: 
Security reviews MAY be send to [email-masked]. 

Citing http://sec.ietf.org/instructions.html:
"Send all reviews to [email-masked], [email-masked], the document
editors, the WG chairs (if any), and the document's PROTO shepherd
(check the draft tracker to see if it different than the WG chairs).
This is the case even for "no problems" reviews. WG chairs may be
reached at [email-masked]. Please put the document name in
the Subject line.

You may send to [email-masked] instead of (or in addition to) the IESG,
if you prefer. If there's something you want to share only with the ADs,
send a separate, ADDITIONAL, messasge to them, flagged as private, but
also send a note to the broader world, as above."

So if we shall also always send the Security review to [email-masked], we
should change the instructions. 

Tobias

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:27 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: IESG last call comments
>