From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 5 16:00:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02771 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAaFr-0001Xr-Vt for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:59:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i35JxZiK005940 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:59:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAaFr-0001Xe-Ot for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:59:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02630 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAaFq-0003oX-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:59:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAa1w-0001Qk-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:45:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAZYC-0006YP-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:14:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAZXp-00048G-9q; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:14:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAZXg-00043J-Kn for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:13:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28099 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAZXf-0006WP-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:13:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAZPg-00052q-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:05:41 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAZ7k-0002Qa-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:47:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52FB61B93; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 20:46:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06303-01; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 20:46:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A51D61AD5; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 20:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:45:51 -0700 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Spencer Dawkins , icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt Message-ID: <234596892.1081165551@localhost> In-Reply-To: <039701c41330$9ba24f00$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> References: <200403152055.PAA24125@ietf.org> <4063F7B9.5424BB6E@zurich.ibm.com> <039701c41330$9ba24f00$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 26. mars 2004 06:48 -0600 Spencer Dawkins wrote: > FWIW, I read almost all Brian's comments as "somebody besides ADs and > WG chairs needs to be worried about getting review that is wide enough > and early enough, and document authors/editors are the obvious > stuckees". I agree. > > It's pretty tempting to slap out a proposal that assumes that the > management structure needs to do something, but we'd be better off if > everyone contributed. I know it's hard to step back, but I'd ask > people to try to think about ICAR as a community responsibility, and > not just another thing for ADs and WG chairs to worry about. agree heartily with the sentiment, but I'm afraid of the crowd syndrome - if everyone's responsible, nobody's responsible. And the WG chair *has* to know what's happening to the WG's documents. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 6 00:17:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15068 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAi17-0001ug-J8 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:16:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i364GrR9007354 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:16:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAi17-0001uX-F2 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:16:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14957 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAi15-00066a-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:16:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAhW1-000359-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:44:46 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAhEi-0000Pe-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:26:52 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BAh33-00066d-3n for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:14:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAh2N-0006Ss-H5; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:14:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAh1n-0006Dv-5z for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:13:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10690 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAh1l-0007Bm-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:13:29 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAga5-0004Km-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:44:54 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAg9i-0001Cs-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:17:38 -0400 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-99-5.client.comcast.net[24.1.99.5]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040406021708012002i0vce> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:17:08 +0000 Message-ID: <00bc01c41b7d$465ae340$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <200403152055.PAA24125@ietf.org> <4063F7B9.5424BB6E@zurich.ibm.com> <039701c41330$9ba24f00$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> <234596892.1081165551@localhost> Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:17:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Harald, Actually, I WAS hoping for a slightly larger crowd, but only slightly larger - if I understood Brian, he suggested including working group document editors in the rugby scrum, along with ADs and WG chairs. My apologies for the inadvertant "everyone" in the second paragraph. Now that we don't have more authors than lines on the first page of a draft, editors should be a bit LESS scary... but, as I'm looking at what I'm typing, some of the twenty-author drafts needed review the most, don't you think? Spencer From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" > --On 26. mars 2004 06:48 -0600 Spencer Dawkins > wrote: > > > FWIW, I read almost all Brian's comments as "somebody besides ADs and > > WG chairs needs to be worried about getting review that is wide enough > > and early enough, and document authors/editors are the obvious > > stuckees". I agree. > > > > It's pretty tempting to slap out a proposal that assumes that the > > management structure needs to do something, but we'd be better off if > > everyone contributed. I know it's hard to step back, but I'd ask > > people to try to think about ICAR as a community responsibility, and > > not just another thing for ADs and WG chairs to worry about. > > agree heartily with the sentiment, but I'm afraid of the crowd syndrome - > if everyone's responsible, nobody's responsible. And the WG chair *has* to > know what's happening to the WG's documents. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 6 05:20:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25434 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 05:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAmkD-0004HY-SM for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:19:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i369JjAa016461 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 05:19:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAmkD-0004HN-MV for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:19:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25380 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 05:19:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAmkA-0003gF-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:19:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAmWG-00010p-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:05:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAlwD-0005fK-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:28:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAlwF-0000E2-4r; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:28:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAlvn-00005Q-Ej for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:27:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21130 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 04:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAlvk-0005ad-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:27:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAlnq-0004Ar-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:19:27 -0400 Received: from imhotep.hursley.ibm.com ([195.212.14.170] helo=mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAlX9-0001Id-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:02:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com) by mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAlWf-0001nO-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:01:41 +0100 Received: from [9.20.136.27] (helo=sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com) by mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAlWf-0001nJ-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:01:41 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-227-182.de.ibm.com [9.145.227.182]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i3681gF103738 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:01:42 +0100 Message-ID: <407263F9.A59CB224@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:02:01 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt References: <200403152055.PAA24125@ietf.org> <4063F7B9.5424BB6E@zurich.ibm.com> <039701c41330$9ba24f00$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> <234596892.1081165551@localhost> <00bc01c41b7d$465ae340$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's clear that the *responsibility* has to be on identified individuals such as WG chairs, secretaries and maybe formal document editors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also encourage document authors to use the review process. Ottherwise there is a sort of deadly embrace possible: a first draft is quite bad, nobody reviews it to tell the author what's wrong, so the WG never adopts it, so the author takes it to another organization, and we end up with the worst of all worlds. Brian Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > Hi, Harald, > > Actually, I WAS hoping for a slightly larger crowd, but only slightly > larger - if I understood Brian, he suggested including working group > document editors in the rugby scrum, along with ADs and WG chairs. My > apologies for the inadvertant "everyone" in the second paragraph. > > Now that we don't have more authors than lines on the first page of a > draft, editors should be a bit LESS scary... but, as I'm looking at > what I'm typing, some of the twenty-author drafts needed review the > most, don't you think? > > Spencer > > From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" > > > --On 26. mars 2004 06:48 -0600 Spencer Dawkins > > > wrote: > > > > > FWIW, I read almost all Brian's comments as "somebody besides ADs > and > > > WG chairs needs to be worried about getting review that is wide > enough > > > and early enough, and document authors/editors are the obvious > > > stuckees". I agree. > > > > > > It's pretty tempting to slap out a proposal that assumes that the > > > management structure needs to do something, but we'd be better off > if > > > everyone contributed. I know it's hard to step back, but I'd ask > > > people to try to think about ICAR as a community responsibility, > and > > > not just another thing for ADs and WG chairs to worry about. > > > > agree heartily with the sentiment, but I'm afraid of the crowd > syndrome - > > if everyone's responsible, nobody's responsible. And the WG chair > *has* to > > know what's happening to the WG's documents. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 13 21:56:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24314 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDZYB-0004fY-FF for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:50:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3E1opvT017948 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:50:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDZWD-0004JN-Se for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:48:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24010 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDZWB-0005Tt-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:48:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDZUs-0005DW-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:47:27 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDZSw-0004sf-01 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:45:27 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BDZEg-0000Em-BG for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:30:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDZB6-0001Jd-SM; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:27:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDZ6J-0000or-OB for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:22:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23220 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDZ6H-0002ny-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:22:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDZ5O-0002j3-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:21:07 -0400 Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDZ4f-0002di-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:20:21 -0400 Received: from [66.95.38.74] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 6836826 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:20:04 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:19:54 -0400 To: icar@ietf.org From: "Joel M. Halpern" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Icar] Progress? Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Folks, We are now at mid-April. We are not making much progress on proposals for early or late review. We have two documents available at the moment. draft-carpenter-icar-sirs-00.txt draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt The first is a starting point on early reviews, the second a starting point on later / formal reviews. There has been no discussion of either document on the mailing list. To try to help, this note picks on one side, and asks one specific question. The context of the rest of this is early review. Taking it as given that we would like to see further experimentation with early reviews, it follows that we need some proposals for ways that might be tried. To help folks who might like to make proposals (I hope there are some), it seems useful to know what properties a good early review proposal should meet. Question for the list: What are the goals a good early review proposal should meet, or properties it should have? Some ideas for things we might discuss: Should the proposal explicitly address cross-area, or just outside the WG, or ? Should the proposal address the reported problems from other review panels with calling for volunteers to review specific documents? Should the proposal have detailed requirements for the review, or just guidelines as to what an initial summary needs to say? Should the proposal include requirements / restrictions on qualifications of reviewers? Should a proposal provide for formal inclusion of early review in the standards process, or should it just be a mechanism for a WG getting early feedback? Should the proposal provide incentives for WGs to make use of early reviews, or "rewards" for doing so? Yours, Joel M. Halpern PS: While it is still very drafty, we do have a working group web page with links to both those documents at http://www.machshav.com/~icar. Suggestions for additional content we should have on that page would be helpful. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 14 13:25:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08502 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDo0i-0001CH-Dd for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:17:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3EHHGND004601 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:17:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDniR-0005du-Bn for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05909 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDniP-00075S-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDngF-0006jr-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:56:08 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDnep-0006VE-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:54:39 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BDnbT-0002i6-JE for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:51:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDnCF-0005HM-KF; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:25:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDmnv-0000p4-Dc for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:00:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03155 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDmnu-0003SS-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:59:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDmmz-0003R6-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:59:01 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDmmD-0003OA-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:58:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC8461AD4; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03033-06; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:57:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D1261A93; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:57:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:41:10 -0700 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: "Joel M. Halpern" , icar@ietf.org Subject: Links to experiments (Re: [Icar] Progress?) Message-ID: <579550769.1081928470@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 13. april 2004 21:19 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > PS: While it is still very drafty, we do have a working group web page > with links to both those documents at http://www.machshav.com/~icar. > Suggestions for additional content we should have on that page would be > helpful. I suggest that we add links to running experiments on the page. The SIRS is one example. I offer http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/review-guidelines.html as another. Harald _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 14 13:43:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10184 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDoJq-0006ky-Aj for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:37:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3EHb2fo025960 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDo6K-00038t-P5 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:23:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08265 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDo6I-0001b3-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:23:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDo5Q-0001Ze-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:22:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDo4t-0001Xr-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:21:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDnvd-00081M-EW; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDnUb-0001KQ-4m for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:44:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05217 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDnUZ-0005xt-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:44:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDnTi-0005vn-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:43:11 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDnSi-0005rK-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:42:08 -0400 Received: from bbfujip (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3EGfUd19310; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:41:30 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:41:34 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1396035342.20040414094134@brandenburg.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" CC: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joel, Thanks for pursuing this. By way of trying to help prime the pump: JMH> Should the proposal explicitly address cross-area, or just outside the WG, or ? Cross-area, versus outside the wg, can be viewed as two different concerns, both very important. Hence, I think the proposal should deal explicitly with both, but leave the actual choices to the working group. This deferral to the wg is based on the view that the proposal should provide a mechanism that is available to the working group, but that the wg chooses whether to use it, rather than having the proposal impose anything on the wg. JMH> Should the proposal address the reported problems from other review panels JMH> with calling for volunteers to review specific documents? That would be nice, but not essential. All feedback is relevant. Requiring that a particular proposal deal with the entire range of possible feedback could be more distracting than beneficial. JMH> Should the proposal have detailed requirements for the review, or just JMH> guidelines as to what an initial summary needs to say? If we view proposals as offering services to working groups, rather than imposing requirements to them, then the the question of review process and content detail become a matter of quality and style, rather than formal requirement. More detail is usually better, but not always. JMH> Should the proposal include requirements / restrictions on qualifications JMH> of reviewers? Again, this is a matter of addressing quality control of the review process. The more random and unpredictable the backgrounds and skills of the reviewers, the more random and unpredictable will be their reviews. JMH> Should a proposal provide for formal inclusion of early review in the JMH> standards process, or should it just be a mechanism for a WG getting early JMH> feedback? I think the formal view should be the latter, and that the former will evolve naturally from that, as the reviewing is shown to improve quality and timeliness. JMH> Should the proposal provide incentives for WGs to make use of early JMH> reviews, or "rewards" for doing so? BY implication, yes, but not by formal rule. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 16 02:55:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16728 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BENF7-0002wd-DH for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:54:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3G6sTOL011319 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:54:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BENBk-0002OL-UI for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:51:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16540 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BENBh-0007gy-3B for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:50:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BENAo-0007cL-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:50:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BENA3-0007Xb-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:49:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEN43-00017g-1R; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:43:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEN1z-0000fO-Qk for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:40:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15904 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BEN1v-0006p7-PN for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:40:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BEN12-0006ja-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:39:57 -0400 Received: from imhotep.hursley.ibm.com ([195.212.14.170] helo=mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEN0A-0006Z1-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:39:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com) by mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEMzg-0006bz-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:38:32 +0100 Received: from [9.20.136.27] (helo=sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com) by mail-gw2.hursley.ibm.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEMzg-0006bu-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:38:32 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-171-93.de.ibm.com [9.145.171.93]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i3G6cWF134386 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:38:33 +0100 Message-ID: <407EBCBA.EC753D6B@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:47:54 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> <1396035342.20040414094134@brandenburg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To a large extent I agree with Dave, but not everywhere... Dave Crocker wrote: > > Joel, > > Thanks for pursuing this. By way of trying to help prime the pump: > > JMH> Should the proposal explicitly address cross-area, or just outside the WG, or ? > > Cross-area, versus outside the wg, can be viewed as two different > concerns, both very important. Hence, I think the proposal should > deal explicitly with both, but leave the actual choices to the working > group. > > This deferral to the wg is based on the view that the proposal should > provide a mechanism that is available to the working group, but that > the wg chooses whether to use it, rather than having the proposal > impose anything on the wg. But at the end of the process, the IESG will impose cross-area review on the WG; that's what the IESG does. So if we want to ease the perception that the IESG is a bottleneck, we need to *encourage* WGs to solicit (and react to) cross-area review. > > JMH> Should the proposal address the reported problems from other review panels > JMH> with calling for volunteers to review specific documents? > > That would be nice, but not essential. All feedback is relevant. > Requiring that a particular proposal deal with the entire range of > possible feedback could be more distracting than beneficial. > > JMH> Should the proposal have detailed requirements for the review, or just > JMH> guidelines as to what an initial summary needs to say? > > If we view proposals as offering services to working groups, rather > than imposing requirements to them, then the the question of review > process and content detail become a matter of quality and style, > rather than formal requirement. More detail is usually better, but not > always. For some strange reason I think the level of guidelines for the content of a review in the SIRs draft is about right. Note, they are guidelines, not requirements. In some of the reviews I've done recently for Harald, I've been amazed - I've seen both void Security sections and missing tables of contents in documents already on the IESG's table. So it seems we do need to apply elementary guidelines, even before getting to review the meat of a document. > > JMH> Should the proposal include requirements / restrictions on qualifications > JMH> of reviewers? > > Again, this is a matter of addressing quality control of the review > process. The more random and unpredictable the backgrounds and skills > of the reviewers, the more random and unpredictable will be their > reviews. We need to make the system self-correcting (i.e. people who turn out to be weak reviewers simply don't get asked back.) > > JMH> Should a proposal provide for formal inclusion of early review in the > JMH> standards process, or should it just be a mechanism for a WG getting early > JMH> feedback? > > I think the formal view should be the latter, and that the former will > evolve naturally from that, as the reviewing is shown to improve > quality and timeliness. > > JMH> Should the proposal provide incentives for WGs to make use of early > JMH> reviews, or "rewards" for doing so? > > BY implication, yes, but not by formal rule. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , > > _______________________________________________ > Icar mailing list > Icar@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 16 13:00:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21822 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEWbN-0005HZ-Ab for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:54:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3GGs5M9020305 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:54:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEWSE-0003A8-33 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:44:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20515 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BEWSC-0002rT-Hv for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:44:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BEWRA-0002lg-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:43:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEWQe-0002gG-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:43:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEWAD-0006i9-4R; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEW5g-0005K3-1t for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:21:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19073 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BEW5e-0000yQ-Kh for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:21:18 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BEW4f-0000vS-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:20:18 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEW46-0000rE-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:19:42 -0400 Received: from bbfujip (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3GGJ9d32622; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:19:09 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:19:07 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <717382561.20040416091907@brandenburg.com> To: Brian E Carpenter CC: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <407EBCBA.EC753D6B@zurich.ibm.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040413211842.022b1918@localhost> <1396035342.20040414094134@brandenburg.com> <407EBCBA.EC753D6B@zurich.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian, >> This deferral to the wg is based on the view that the proposal should >> provide a mechanism that is available to the working group, but that >> the wg chooses whether to use it, rather than having the proposal >> impose anything on the wg. BEC> But at the end of the process, the IESG will impose cross-area review BEC> on the WG; that's what the IESG does. So if we want to ease the perception BEC> that the IESG is a bottleneck, we need to *encourage* WGs to solicit (and BEC> react to) cross-area review. Definitely correct. The significant point, however, is that having this become a de facto requirement is not part of defining or using the review process itself. Making it effectively mandatory is outside of the critical path for initiating the review capability. Rather, it develops as a requirement later, as the utility of early, wg-initiated reviews becomes evident. Hence it is the usefulness of the reviews that prompts working groups to get them done, rather than the imposition of an externally imposed and externally managed rule. I should comment that we need to be careful about thinking that the only important reviews are cross-area and that cross-area reviews are always required. An algorithm change to BGP does not need a review by Apps and well might not need a review by anyone outside of the Routing area. Definition of an RFC2822 header might not need review outside of Apps. It all depends on the nature of the thing being specified. (But, yes, we currently do not do nearly enough cross-area review.) >> If we view proposals as offering services to working groups, rather >> than imposing requirements to them, then the the question of review >> process and content detail become a matter of quality and style, >> rather than formal requirement. More detail is usually better, but not >> always. BEC> For some strange reason I think the level of guidelines for the content BEC> of a review in the SIRs draft is about right. Note, they are guidelines, BEC> not requirements. yeah, pretty remarkable. equally astonishing is that i agree with you... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 05:07:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27956 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:07:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFUgi-0002Qc-R6 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:03:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3J93aGU009334 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:03:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFUa0-0001Ni-Bz for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:56:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26960 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFUZx-0000Dt-39 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:56:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFUWU-00076z-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:53:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFUUS-0006f6-0A for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:50:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFU6U-0001B9-Kf; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:26:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFTug-00073U-0D for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:13:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24595 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFTud-00067u-6N for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:13:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFTtm-0005ui-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:13:02 -0400 Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFTtB-0005fc-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:12:25 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.1]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3J8BtPk010682 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:11:55 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i3J8Bt9Q135562 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:11:55 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-172-64.de.ibm.com [9.145.172.64]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA37506 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:11:54 +0200 Message-ID: <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:12:11 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: icar WG References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Generally, I like this, but I am concerned that we must also install a process for *early* cross-area review (to deal with Bad Ideas before people over-invest in them). I see no reason why these teams can't be used for non-WG documents and for RFC Editor documents, and very good reasons why they should be (i.e. those documents need the same level of review as everything else). A comment on the end of section 1.1: > ALTERNATE MODEL: Instead of aligning the reviewers with IETF areas > (which have many reasons for existence, but coverage of problem space > is not one of them), we could imagine picking a list of "problem > areas" (formalities, security, manageability, scalability, > congestion, internationalization....) and pick a reviewer for each > such "problem area" for the team. I don't think this is a good idea. Although an Area-based structure may not be ideal, it has the merit of being easy to set up and explain. Setting up a problem-based structure would be potentially controversial and generally more complicated. Brian > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 08:06:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06402 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFXRZ-0003Yw-Ap for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:00:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JC09vX013690 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:00:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFXPQ-00039Z-Km for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:57:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06111 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFXPP-0001Oj-Mj for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:57:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFXOW-0001CQ-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:57:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFXNs-0000zt-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:56:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFXIk-0001pZ-HR; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:51:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFXG6-0001Im-RA for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:48:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05701 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFXG6-0006zn-11 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:48:18 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFXF8-0006lj-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:47:18 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFXEQ-0006VG-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:46:34 -0400 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-99-5.client.comcast.net[24.1.99.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004041911455801400ravcre> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:45:58 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "icar WG" References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:46:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian E Carpenter" To: "icar WG" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 3:12 AM Subject: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt > A comment on the end of section 1.1: > > > ALTERNATE MODEL: Instead of aligning the reviewers with IETF areas > > (which have many reasons for existence, but coverage of problem space > > is not one of them), we could imagine picking a list of "problem > > areas" (formalities, security, manageability, scalability, > > congestion, internationalization....) and pick a reviewer for each > > such "problem area" for the team. > > I don't think this is a good idea. Although an Area-based structure may > not be ideal, it has the merit of being easy to set up and explain. > Setting up a problem-based structure would be potentially controversial > and generally more complicated. We've talked previously about the need to involve generalists for this kind of review. An area-based structure seems easy to start with, but unlikely to involve lots of generalists. I guess the problem I see with an area-based structure is that "cross-area review" can require multiple (cross) areas. I've seen people say "maybe apps people don't need to look at BGP specs", and that could be right, but if we learned anything from site-local, it's that we needed review from apps, transport, other internet groups, and probably others I can't think of. The need for broad review may be the rule, not the exception. I note that even in directorates, we've used multi-area teams (wireless), and suspect that this would be a good idea in more cases than we've used it in the past. At some point, having a single cross-area review board makes more sense. I'm not sure whether we are at that point or not, but I'd like us to make that decision, instead of assuming a single review board is obviously the wrong thing to do, and an area-based structure is the only choice. Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 10:48:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14865 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFa3U-0002uK-TI for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:47:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JElS1Y011171 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:47:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFa17-0002RF-Us for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14756 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFa15-0000Ls-Js for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:44:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFa08-000097-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:44:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFZzE-0007jE-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:43:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFZwK-0001Jk-J8; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:40:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFZuZ-0000qO-Cu for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:38:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14448 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFZuW-0006ax-RL for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:38:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFZu5-0006MS-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:37:45 -0400 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFZsb-00067O-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:36:13 -0400 Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3JEaAH4092353; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564DB77A6D5; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:36:09 -0400 (EDT) To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: Links to experiments (Re: [Icar] Progress?) In-Reply-To: <579550769.1081928470@localhost> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Jungle Love MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:36:09 -0400 Message-Id: <20040419143609.564DB77A6D5@guns.icir.org> Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Harald- > I suggest that we add links to running experiments on the page. The > SIRS is one example. I offer > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/review-guidelines.html as another. Good thoughts. I added pointers to both of these (as well as your late xarea review i-d) to the web page. The page is at: http://www.machshav.com/~icar Folks- please do not hesitate to point out additional items that belong on that page. Thanks! allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAg+PZWyrrWs4yIs4RAljaAKCRCk4U7/bujicn5Q+X/Wyc+JkC3gCeLPi0 FG5zq0UhqgIQJcR883ZiiGM= =XFqL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 13:06:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23924 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcCC-0000lM-BF for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:04:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JH4aGP002928 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:04:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFc3y-0007LH-VA for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23461 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFc3x-0000z9-6t for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:56:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFc2x-0000iy-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFc1w-0000Lm-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:54:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFbwA-0005JD-Mr; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:48:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFboq-0003RL-8U for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:40:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22560 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:40:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFboo-00051D-Kf for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:40:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFbo2-0004ls-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:39:39 -0400 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFbn9-0004VJ-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:38:43 -0400 Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3JGcdH4095184; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:38:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B5C77A6D5; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:38:38 -0400 (EDT) To: Dave Crocker From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Cc: Brian E Carpenter , icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <717382561.20040416091907@brandenburg.com> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Jungle Love MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:38:38 -0400 Message-Id: <20040419163838.39B5C77A6D5@guns.icir.org> Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dave- Thanks for the input! I want to push back a little to understand the thinking .... > The significant point, however, is that having this become a de facto > requirement is not part of defining or using the review process > itself. Making it effectively mandatory is outside of the critical > path for initiating the review capability. > > Rather, it develops as a requirement later, as the utility of early, > wg-initiated reviews becomes evident. Hence it is the usefulness of > the reviews that prompts working groups to get them done, rather than > the imposition of an externally imposed and externally managed rule. First, I think that we can seperate the "review function" from the "process function" that might mandate/suggest/whatever the review function, as you suggest. But, I wonder if getting this all going is a chicken-and-egg thing. I.e., if we don't invoke the review function as an explicit step in the process will anyone do it? It seems clear that if we could get folks to start doing it then things may well snowball nicely (i.e., the community would see that it was worthwhile). But, in the absence of experience that concretely shows that some sort of early review function is, in fact, useful and worthwhile what is the incentive for a WG to invoke the review function? The other thing I wonder about is new-ish folk in the IETF. People bring ideas in that are not really baked, but they don't realize it (new UDP-based app with no congestion control, no thoughts given to security, etc.). What is the incentive for these people to turn around and ask a bunch of people they don't know to pick apart their work when they are Obviously Correct? SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. So, in the absence of expicit direction how do we get some sort of review function going? Thanks! allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAhACOWyrrWs4yIs4RAjx4AKCTIozBIxP4w0TUm5DndoRsE95IVgCfQBvS E9hlNyQCGXzzwPsLCb9klts= =yI7s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 13:10:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24202 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcDE-00012p-MB for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:05:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JH5eOH004009 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:05:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcBq-0000kK-U8 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:04:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23848 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcBp-0002oY-1F for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:04:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcAu-0002bM-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:03:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcAM-0002Nu-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:02:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFc2u-0007FV-Jw; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFbwN-0005MT-LX for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:48:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22931 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFbwL-0006s4-Qb for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:48:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFbvN-0006eU-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:47:14 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFbuw-0006RI-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:46:46 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3JGkiuH088531; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:46:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i3JGki7n088530; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:46:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:46:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Spencer Dawkins cc: icar WG Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt In-Reply-To: <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Message-ID: References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > At some point, having a single cross-area review board makes more > sense. I'm not sure whether we are at that point or not, Spencer, Could you please clarify what is the axis along which we may eventually reach the point where "a single cross-area review board makes more sense"? The size of the IETF? The number of reviewers? The number of good pool managers available? Something else? > but I'd like us to make that decision, instead of assuming a single > review board is obviously the wrong thing to do, and an area-based > structure is the only choice. FWIW, I believe that a single review board/pool for early and late cross-area review is at least worth seriously considering. Reviewers will have an option to augment their public profiles with their areas of expertise, of course. Perhaps somebody with a lot of IETF experience can post an unbiased (i.e., avoiding adjectives) list of pros/cons for a single pool and segregated boards options? Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 13:34:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25987 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcWG-0005B6-7I for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:25:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JHPKbu019897 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:25:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcTZ-0004cn-NT for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:22:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24858 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcTX-0007E4-PE for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:22:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcSC-0006rT-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:21:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcRH-0006bW-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:20:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcJP-0002j2-0j; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:12:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcGa-0001ys-Li for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:09:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24141 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcGY-0003zH-PD for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:09:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcFc-0003m5-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:08:09 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcEe-0003LP-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:07:08 -0400 Received: from bbfujip (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3JH6Vd31810; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:06:31 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:06:42 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <45741475.20040419100642@brandenburg.com> To: Mark Allman CC: Brian E Carpenter , icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <20040419163838.39B5C77A6D5@guns.icir.org> References: <717382561.20040416091907@brandenburg.com> <20040419163838.39B5C77A6D5@guns.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, MA> I.e., if we don't invoke the review function as an explicit step in the MA> process will anyone do it? We already have some working groups doing it. How do we get more? I think that this is a matter of culture and educating folks about benefits and, to some extent, expectations. Let's assume that participants want good things. This is a reasonable assumption almost all the time. This means that a benefits-oriented approach should work, without the need of coercion. Simple examples of how to 'sell' the idea of early, (external) (cross-area) reviews: Working Group chair training touts it. ADs suggest it -- repeatedly. Experienced participations suggest it -- repeatedly. I think there is also benefit in having a centralized index for accessing reviews, so that the community can see what it happening in that front. It also serves to mark the possible snowball effect that you cite. MA> But, in the absence of experience MA> that concretely shows that some sort of early review function is, in MA> fact, useful and worthwhile what is the incentive for a WG to invoke the MA> review function? If reviewing proposals were an odd or new idea then we might have to worry about selling the basic concept. But this is all pretty standard stuff in the academic and engineering community. Getting fresh sets of expert eyes to look things over is not a controversial concept and the benefits are well-established. MA> The other thing I wonder about is new-ish folk in the IETF. People MA> bring ideas in that are not really baked, but they don't realize it (new MA> UDP-based app with no congestion control, no thoughts given to security, MA> etc.). What is the incentive for these people to turn around and ask a MA> bunch of people they don't know to pick apart their work when they are MA> Obviously Correct? The question is what is the incentive for a *group* to call for reviews. Individuals do not matter much, but the group does. So the review process serves to raise important questions about a spec -- or provide confirmation of its constructs -- before there has been long-term investment in the effort. That's pretty strong incentive. MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS experience before. Quick summary: SIRS was started during summer and by mid-Fall there were rumors it had failed. The negative effect this is likely to have had on continued use of SIRS should not be underestimated. Particularly given typical IETF timeframes, that anyone would declare a strategic IETF experiment to have failed after such a short time suggests deeper problems with either patience levels or agendas. SIRS did virtually no "marketing" either proactively such as prodding working groups to use its services, or passively, such as collecting review data (statistics and source copies of reviews) in a single place. On the other hand, it got good signup by folks offering to do reviews and it did get some review requests. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 13:54:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27407 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcsu-0000pr-MV for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:48:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JHmiLx003207 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:48:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcpQ-0000AK-3J for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:45:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26790 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcpO-0005Rt-1K for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:45:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcoP-00058W-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:44:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcnM-0004i1-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:43:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcgd-0006jk-5J; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcZc-0005eG-5s for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:28:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25646 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcZa-0001Le-4H for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:28:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcYb-00012G-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:27:46 -0400 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcWz-0000QR-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:26:05 -0400 Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3JHQ4H4096011; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:26:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEBC77A6D5; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:26:03 -0400 (EDT) To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Cc: Brian E Carpenter , icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <45741475.20040419100642@brandenburg.com> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Jungle Love MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:26:03 -0400 Message-Id: <20040419172603.3DEBC77A6D5@guns.icir.org> Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > We already have some working groups doing it. How do we get more? I > think that this is a matter of culture and educating folks about > benefits and, to some extent, expectations. I'll buy this. But, there is a fine line between developing culture and developing rules, I think. I.e., if we're relying on folk (especially ADs) to cajole WGs into invoking the review function then we may be basically creating de-facto rules. > If reviewing proposals were an odd or new idea then we might have to > worry about selling the basic concept. But this is all pretty > standard stuff in the academic and engineering community. Getting > fresh sets of expert eyes to look things over is not a controversial > concept and the benefits are well-established. I agree. The downside is time. People already think the IETF process is too slow. Adding another step may simply look like lengthening the process. Of course, the hope is that we're also lopping off a significant chunk at the end. But, that is the part that we do not yet have concrete examples of. If you could show data that said "early reviewed docs took X months from -00 to RFC and non-early review docs took Y months from -00 to RFC, where X << Y" then the case would be clear and compelling. > MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. > > I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS experience before. I was not insinuating that it was a failure. We'd do things differently if we had it to do over. My point was that its existence did not immediately yield people clamoring for reviews. If getting a breadth of early reviews was self-evidently good then I'd have expected more. I do think I understand your answer to my original question, though. I think it boils down to having a big organizational push to try some things (one thing, two things, whatever). allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAhAurWyrrWs4yIs4RAuUlAJ9v/j9V1uBEgVovcrR2D/pAJperLgCeIVlF iYxERPsP7cLyroS0BV4buSE= =PsgQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 13:57:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27527 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcuj-0001A5-SL for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:50:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JHobn5004461 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:50:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcqV-0000LP-DH for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:46:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26871 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcqT-0005jD-6r for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:46:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcpW-0005TF-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:45:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcoe-0005AS-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:44:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFchY-0006qk-Jl; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:37:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFcav-0005tA-H3 for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:30:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25816 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:30:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFcat-0001oG-F2 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:30:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcZu-0001Yr-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:29:07 -0400 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFcYz-00018I-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:28:09 -0400 Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3JHS9H4096029; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:28:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC56177A6D5; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:28:07 -0400 (EDT) To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Cc: Brian E Carpenter , icar@ietf.org Subject: archiving reviews (Re: [Icar] Progress?) In-Reply-To: <45741475.20040419100642@brandenburg.com> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Jungle Love MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:28:07 -0400 Message-Id: <20040419172807.CC56177A6D5@guns.icir.org> Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I think there is also benefit in having a centralized index for > accessing reviews, so that the community can see what it happening in > that front. It also serves to mark the possible snowball effect that > you cite. I agree. If folks are interested I am happy to host some sort of an archive on the ICAR web pages. I am not offering anything fancy. But, I am offering *something* for whatever reviewing experiments we want to undertake. (Harald's General Area Review Team has an archive.) allman --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAhAwnWyrrWs4yIs4RAnanAJ0XwRXceF0A5btpjKDdIB3SUJKaJgCeOpSF XZ2QbE6RaW48BtIbCkDIL0M= =+eVy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 14:25:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29500 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdP6-0007Oy-QR for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:22:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JIM0Dm028450 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:22:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdMb-0006px-Mj for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29247 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFdMZ-0005z0-5Y for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFdLd-0005ko-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:18:26 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFdLB-0005W5-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:17:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdGR-0005U6-6z; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:13:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdA0-0003ht-V8 for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28444 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFd9y-0002jT-Hi for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFd95-0002V7-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:05:28 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFd8B-00022h-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:04:31 -0400 Received: from bbfujip (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3JI3ud08128; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:03:56 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:04:05 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1768034839.20040419110405@brandenburg.com> To: Mark Allman CC: Brian E Carpenter , icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <20040419172603.3DEBC77A6D5@guns.icir.org> References: <45741475.20040419100642@brandenburg.com> <20040419172603.3DEBC77A6D5@guns.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, MA> I'll buy this. But, there is a fine line between developing culture and MA> developing rules, I think. I.e., if we're relying on folk (especially MA> ADs) to cajole WGs into invoking the review function then we may be MA> basically creating de-facto rules. In the long-run, yes of course. However the difference in the near-term is massive. Near-term is a seductive appeal to benefits, with voluntary adoption, rather than a coercive imposition from an external authority. MA> The downside is time. People already think the IETF process is too MA> slow. Adding another step may simply look like lengthening the MA> process. Given current IETF timeframes, it is more likely that review processes will reduce the amount of time needed, rather than increasingly it, by virtue of early, basic improvements in the specification. MA> Of course, the hope is that we're also lopping off a MA> significant chunk at the end. right. but more than that. better focus of the working group. >> MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. >> I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS experience before. MA> I was not insinuating that it was a failure. We'd do things differently MA> if we had it to do over. I'm not so sure. That would depend on the characteristics of the process that one believes should be different. I do not recall seeing arguments against points of the SIRS structure or in favor of alternative designs, that argue for superiority of results. MA> My point was that its existence did not MA> immediately yield people clamoring for reviews. Of course not. This is a community this is currently responding to crisis conditions by taking more than 2 years to make any meaningful changes. MA> If getting a breadth of MA> early reviews was self-evidently good then I'd have expected more. You shouldn't have. As I said, the problem is with the expectations. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 21:48:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27308 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFkJ7-0005pQ-N9 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:44:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3K1iHju022404 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:44:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFkCd-0004WV-Ui for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26857 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFkCb-0006W0-8Z for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:33 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFkBf-0006Hc-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:36:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFkAy-00063A-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:35:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFk9B-0003e2-9N; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFk7l-00032G-Sd for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:32:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26668 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFk7j-0005G7-3a for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:32:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFk6l-00051v-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:31:32 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFk6Q-0004nl-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:31:10 -0400 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-99-5.client.comcast.net[24.1.99.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004042001303501500ro0nre> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:30:36 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c42677$1d144d50$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "icar WG" References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:30:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Alex, From: "Alex Rousskov" To: "Spencer Dawkins" Cc: "icar WG" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > > At some point, having a single cross-area review board makes more > > sense. I'm not sure whether we are at that point or not, > > Spencer, > > Could you please clarify what is the axis along which we may > eventually reach the point where "a single cross-area review board > makes more sense"? The size of the IETF? The number of reviewers? The > number of good pool managers available? Something else? You actually guessed better than I would have, without prompting, but since you ask - the absurd limit would be if we had one review board per area, and area directors started saying, "my area review board needs to review drafts before I'll vote for them", so all documents got pairwise cross-area reviews with every area review board. This is the absurd limit. How close are we? Well, I've spent time in transport, so when we were doing triggers for transport, we needed to talk to people in transport (no problem), Internet, applications, and security. Like, duh. The NON-duh part was that, out of all the very helpful feedback we received, the MOST helpful feedback was from Dave Meyer in OPS. So in the event, we DIDN'T get cross-area review from routing (although we would have needed it, if we'd gone further with multi-homing), or from Sub-IP, or from the General area, but we weren't far from mesh connectivity. Would I have been thrilled to chase down four or five area review boards? Well, actually, not really. So, I guess the question for the mailing list is, is most of your work stuff that needs cross area review with one or two areas (so area-based review teams make sense), or with three or more areas (full meshes aren't that great at scaling, IIRC). Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 21:57:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27746 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFkUs-0008AF-0F for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:56:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3K1uPEx031378 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:56:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFkRC-0007VO-Pj for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:52:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27502 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFkR9-0002KW-Rc for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:52:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFkQH-00026K-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:51:41 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFkPr-0001rU-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:51:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFkLl-0006Wl-ID; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFkEU-0004nd-Es for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:39:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26966 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFkER-0006xw-Jr for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:39:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFkDS-0006jr-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:38:27 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFkCW-0006IM-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:29 -0400 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-99-5.client.comcast.net[24.1.99.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004042001365901500r90rce> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:36:59 +0000 Message-ID: <007a01c42678$04c002c0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <45741475.20040419100642@brandenburg.com> <20040419172603.3DEBC77A6D5@guns.icir.org> <1768034839.20040419110405@brandenburg.com> Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:37:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dave Crocker" To: "Mark Allman" > Mark, > >> MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. > >> I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS experience before. > > MA> I was not insinuating that it was a failure. We'd do things differently > MA> if we had it to do over. > > I'm not so sure. That would depend on the characteristics of the > process that one believes should be different. I do not recall seeing > arguments against points of the SIRS structure or in favor of > alternative designs, that argue for superiority of results. I may be incorrectly channeling Mark, but I took his comment about doing things differently as having more to do with not punting after four months than about changing SIR structure, etc. Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 19 23:43:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03313 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFm3H-0007w8-9a for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:36:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3K3a3L6030502 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFlzJ-0006ij-36 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:31:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02566 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFlzH-0003wW-1a for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:31:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFly8-0003g0-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:30:44 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFlxc-0003QY-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:30:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFlqh-0004l5-IL; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:23:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFllO-0003WB-Al for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:17:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01663 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFllM-0000Fr-9k for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:17:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BFlkU-00001U-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:16:39 -0400 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFljg-0007Ze-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:15:48 -0400 Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3K3FmsM003448; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:15:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@icir.org) Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B45277A6D5; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3F213AF5E; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:15:45 -0400 (EDT) To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Cc: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? In-Reply-To: <007a01c42678$04c002c0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Jungle Love MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:15:45 -0400 Message-Id: <20040420031545.6C3F213AF5E@lawyers.icir.org> Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain > > I'm not so sure. That would depend on the characteristics of the > > process that one believes should be different. I do not recall > > seeing arguments against points of the SIRS structure or in favor of > > alternative designs, that argue for superiority of results. > > I may be incorrectly channeling Mark, but I took his comment about > doing things differently as having more to do with not punting after > four months than about changing SIR structure, etc. Yeah, Dave and I worked through this off-list and you're exactly right Spencer. I was not making a comment on the soundness of the SIRS proposal, just on the actual experiment with it (with the major point being that more experience would be better). Thanks for making this more clear Spencer. allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFAhJXhWyrrWs4yIs4RAiPzAKCUt5OGGzcbWb6ZHoL2tjvA8qEQ7QCeNyJz xSZ7MtPsMVyVk2Bx5oCF+/c= =l3Di -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 21 18:28:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24218 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGPqx-0003aL-BJ for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:06:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3LM5xgX013781 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:05:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGP3y-0000Im-RJ for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:15:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14887 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGP3w-0007b3-Ip for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:15:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGP31-0007PV-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:14:24 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGP2c-0007Dx-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:13:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGOaf-0003xK-F6; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:45:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGMON-0001Wb-N6 for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:24:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06101 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGMOL-0000qV-5Q for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:24:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGMNN-0000gY-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:23:13 -0400 Received: from f112.brocade.com ([66.243.153.112] helo=blasphemy.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGMMk-0000LW-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:22:34 -0400 Received: from hq-ex-11.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-11 [192.168.38.58]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC00614131; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Icar] Progress? Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:21:55 -0700 Message-ID: <191DA4FAE235D24C9BCC8D50F6B17AB92E7C68@hq-ex-11.brocade.com> Thread-Topic: [Icar] Progress? Thread-Index: AcQmNcIZlDN4cwXGRpy5QgCICrjSdgBlDqEg From: "Robert Snively" To: , , "Claudio DeSanti (E-mail)" Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" , , "Elizabeth Rodriguez (E-mail)" , "Roger Cummings (E-mail)" , "David Black (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As an example of a case where early dedicated formal reviews with formal responses accelerated the progress of a document, look at the IPv6 over Fibre Channel document. It's author, Claudio DeSanti can tell you the detailed timeline, but it has been roughly half the time of other documents that I know of that were progressing at the same time. It was also without major errors when it came to last calls. By the way, the review also exploited a strong liaison with the knowledgeable non-IETF organization that does Fibre Channel, INCITS TC T11. Without such liaison, the document would have been much less likely to be useful. We have made it an explicit goal in the Fibre Channel Interfaces committee to assist and accelerate the development of IETF-related activities in our committees through such liaison and formal review. Robert Snively, Chair INCITS TC T11 Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. 1745 Technology Drive San Jose, CA 95110 +1 408 333 8135 rsnively@brocade.com=20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: icar-admin@ietf.org [mailto:icar-admin@ietf.org]On=20 > Behalf Of Mark > Allman > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:26 AM > To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com > Cc: Brian E Carpenter; icar@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress? >=20 >=20 >=20 > > We already have some working groups doing it. How do we get more? I > > think that this is a matter of culture and educating folks about > > benefits and, to some extent, expectations. >=20 > I'll buy this. But, there is a fine line between developing=20 > culture and > developing rules, I think. I.e., if we're relying on folk (especially > ADs) to cajole WGs into invoking the review function then we may be > basically creating de-facto rules. >=20 > > If reviewing proposals were an odd or new idea then we might have to > > worry about selling the basic concept. But this is all pretty > > standard stuff in the academic and engineering community. Getting > > fresh sets of expert eyes to look things over is not a controversial > > concept and the benefits are well-established. >=20 > I agree. >=20 > The downside is time. People already think the IETF process is too > slow. Adding another step may simply look like lengthening the > process. Of course, the hope is that we're also lopping off a > significant chunk at the end. But, that is the part that we=20 > do not yet > have concrete examples of. If you could show data that said "early > reviewed docs took X months from -00 to RFC and non-early review docs > took Y months from -00 to RFC, where X << Y" then the case would be > clear and compelling. >=20 > > MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. > >=20 > > I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS=20 > experience before. >=20 > I was not insinuating that it was a failure. We'd do things=20 > differently > if we had it to do over. My point was that its existence did not > immediately yield people clamoring for reviews. If getting a=20 > breadth of > early reviews was self-evidently good then I'd have expected more. >=20 > I do think I understand your answer to my original question,=20 > though. I > think it boils down to having a big organizational push to try some > things (one thing, two things, whatever). >=20 > allman >=20 >=20 > -- > Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Apr 25 16:28:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16082 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHqDV-0006sh-9m for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:27:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3PKR9lc026451 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:27:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHq9l-0005Os-Ic for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:23:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15867 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BHq9j-0006YX-OF for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:23:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BHq8n-0006Mq-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:22:18 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BHq80-0006BR-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:21:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHq6c-0004sx-9D; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHq4r-00049G-1A for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:18:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15750 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BHq4p-0005aW-8U for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:18:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BHq3r-0005On-00 for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:17:12 -0400 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BHq2w-0005D1-00 for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:16:14 -0400 Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3PKGDjN017500 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:16:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@icir.org) Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BA777A71D for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB57D1401DA for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:59:01 -0400 (EDT) To: icar@ietf.org From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: The Bug MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:59:01 -0400 Message-Id: <20040425135901.CB57D1401DA@lawyers.icir.org> Subject: [Icar] new review commitee i-d Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain FYI, Title : Using Working Group Review Committees Author(s) : M. Allman, J. Kempf Filename : draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt Pages : 5 Date : 2004-4-22 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt allman --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFAi8QlWyrrWs4yIs4RAneUAJ9XQ+jzDbdLwAs+vya6SzSABwcsswCcDw9A b8VSpV7FaSc50S3qc81Wzjg= =udZw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 26 17:43:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25894 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIDam-0001Fy-Vb for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:24:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3QLOii3004826 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:24:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIDRd-0006Ja-17 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23644 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIDRa-0004W3-EQ for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:15:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIDQd-0004SB-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:14:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIDPj-0004OL-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:13:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIDBu-0002K0-Ge; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:59:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BICze-0006un-Py for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:46:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18269 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BICzc-00001K-FA for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:46:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BICol-0005pR-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:35:08 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BICWl-0004Y4-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:16:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C17621C1; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:16:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27169-03; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:16:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FF161C25; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:16:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:16:44 -0700 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Spencer Dawkins , icar WG Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Message-ID: <310594881.1082974604@localhost> In-Reply-To: <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 19. april 2004 06:46 -0500 Spencer Dawkins wrote: > At some point, having a single cross-area review board makes more > sense. I'm not sure whether we are at that point or not, but I'd like > us to make that decision, instead of assuming a single review board is > obviously the wrong thing to do, and an area-based structure is the > only choice. Spencer, are you thinking that there's one single (large) pool of reviewers from which the set of reviewers for a given document is drawn, or are you thinking about a single group of reviewers where all reviewers review all documents? I'm pretty sure you mean the former, but want to make sure. One thing I like about a team-based approach is that teammates get to know each other and can learn from each other. And besides, it lessens the work of picking reviewers for a document - rather than having to choose 7 or so reviewers, you just choose one team..... but I'm biased..... I wrote this one :-) _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 26 23:03:54 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13324 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIIrV-000709-6k for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:02:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3R32LFu026900 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:02:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIImr-0006BO-UY for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:57:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13073 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIImo-0005gB-FE for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:57:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIIlr-0005ZF-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:56:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIIlC-0005Su-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:55:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIIhU-0005Xz-QE; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIIaD-0004e7-QO for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:44:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12490 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIIaA-00046i-CQ for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:44:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIIZC-0003xl-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:43:26 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIIYP-0003kD-00 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:42:37 -0400 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-99-5.client.comcast.net[24.1.99.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004042702420601300565ioe> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 02:42:07 +0000 Message-ID: <038101c42c01$4ae4baf0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "icar WG" References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> <310594881.1082974604@localhost> Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:42:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Harald, From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" To: "Spencer Dawkins" ; "icar WG" Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt > > > --On 19. april 2004 06:46 -0500 Spencer Dawkins > wrote: > > > At some point, having a single cross-area review board makes more > > sense. I'm not sure whether we are at that point or not, but I'd like > > us to make that decision, instead of assuming a single review board is > > obviously the wrong thing to do, and an area-based structure is the > > only choice. > > Spencer, > > are you thinking that there's one single (large) pool of reviewers from > which the set of reviewers for a given document is drawn, or are you > thinking about a single group of reviewers where all reviewers review all > documents? > > I'm pretty sure you mean the former, but want to make sure. Yes, that's correct - the scaling problems with the latter are obvious even to me :-} > > One thing I like about a team-based approach is that teammates get to know > each other and can learn from each other. And besides, it lessens the work > of picking reviewers for a document - rather than having to choose 7 or so > reviewers, you just choose one team..... Perhaps I was pre-judging your draft without reading it carefully enough - you really ARE talking about a TSV area review team (to pick an area) that contains one reviewer from each OTHER area, appointed by every OTHER area's director(s), right? I didn't get this the first time around. Sorry. Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 27 11:08:24 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06032 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIU97-0007Zr-25 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:05:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3RF5HL3029127 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:05:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIU15-0005aZ-3w for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:56:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05345 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIU0y-0003hz-Lw for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:56:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIU05-0003gb-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:55:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BITzT-0003ek-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:55:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BITtP-0004EC-1v; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:49:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BITlj-0002yt-AD for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:41:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04579 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:41:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BITld-00032S-3U for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:41:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BITkh-000307-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:40:03 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BITkA-0002wO-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:39:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F54A61BAF; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:39:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23984-07; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:39:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC4361C07; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:38:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:28:38 -0700 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Spencer Dawkins , icar WG Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Message-ID: <386908845.1083050918@localhost> In-Reply-To: <038101c42c01$4ae4baf0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> References: <200404152040.QAA25508@ietf.org> <408389DB.CEE7850E@zurich.ibm.com> <001601c42603$e8de0bc0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> <310594881.1082974604@localhost> <038101c42c01$4ae4baf0$0300a8c0@DFNJGL21> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 26. april 2004 21:42 -0500 Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> One thing I like about a team-based approach is that teammates get > to know >> each other and can learn from each other. And besides, it lessens > the work >> of picking reviewers for a document - rather than having to choose 7 > or so >> reviewers, you just choose one team..... > > Perhaps I was pre-judging your draft without reading it carefully > enough - you really ARE talking about a TSV area review team (to pick > an area) that contains one reviewer from each OTHER area, appointed by > every OTHER area's director(s), right? I didn't get this the first > time around. Sorry. right - apologies for being unable to make it clearer - this has been hard for other readers to grasp too! Harald _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 27 14:33:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18684 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIXN1-0003CI-Pv for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:31:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3RIVpMd012285 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:31:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIXHV-0002lA-C6 for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:26:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18299 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIXHQ-0005wp-QM for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:26:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIXGT-0005r2-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:25:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIXFY-0005mc-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:24:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIXAb-0001dS-2P; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIX7y-00016Z-MK for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:16:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17819 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIX7q-0004yu-CK for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:16:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIX6q-0004tA-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:15:09 -0400 Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIX6S-0004oo-00 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:14:44 -0400 Received: from [64.254.114.114] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 6876711 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:14:40 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040427140938.0246d478@localhost> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:14:24 -0400 To: icar@ietf.org From: "Joel M. Halpern" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Icar] Fwd: Change to ForCES List Moderation Policy Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 The message below represents a common (and probably appropriate) mailing list policy now being used by the ForCES working group. The reason I am copying the ICAR list is that policies like this have an impact on some (but not all proposed) cross-area review mechanisms. It seems likely that many early reviewers will not be active working group participants and will not want to receive all working group email. I would hope that reviewers will be willing to discuss their reviews and concerns with the working group. With anti-spam policies that are frequently used here, there are obstacles / delays in the way of that dialog. It seems likely that in any review proposal which would be affected by this we should recommend mechanisms for working groups to use to minimize the impact (for example, white-listing reviewers.) Just a suggestion as a participant. Yours, Joel >Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:32:36 -0700 >Reply-To: "Putzolu, David" >Sender: Forwarding and Control Element Separation > >From: "Putzolu, David" >Subject: Change to ForCES List Moderation Policy >To: FORCES@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM > >All, > >Due to the high volume of non-subscriber spam, the >ForCES list configuration is being changed as follows. > >- Previously non-subscriber mail was reviewed by the > chairs and forwarded if appropriate >+ Going forward, non-subscriber mail will be automatically > rejected. Non-subscribers must contact me or Patrick > (dro@zurich.ibm.com) directly to have their email > forwarded to the list. > >Handling of subscriber posts remains unchanged, that is, >all subscriber posts are verified via a nonce to the >sender, then posted to the list. > >The ForCES mailing list moderation policy is fully >explained at: >http://www.sstanamera.com/~forces/mailing.html > >-David _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 28 08:23:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11951 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BInyP-0000md-5R for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:15:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3SCFXiw003007 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:15:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BInra-0006OI-GH for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:08:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09952 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BInrZ-0005Kg-Lt for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:08:29 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BInqR-0004xw-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:07:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BInpa-0004e0-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:06:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BInNU-00085s-4d; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:37:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIlTp-0003jw-2I for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:35:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA02575 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIlTj-0003hg-Hi for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:35:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIlSm-0003Tm-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:34:45 -0400 Received: from mtagate6.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.155]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIlSK-0003Fg-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:34:16 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate6.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3S9XmMp149892; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:33:48 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i3S9XmYk160812; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:33:48 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-172-96.de.ibm.com [9.145.172.96]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA53986; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:33:47 +0200 Message-ID: <408F7A88.40306@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:34:00 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" CC: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] Fwd: Change to ForCES List Moderation Policy References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040427140938.0246d478@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040427140938.0246d478@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit iirc, mailman allows the list administrator to white-list specific non-subscribers, so clearly Joel is correct, and reviewers working for a given WG should indeed be able to post, at least if it's using the official IETF list support. Brian Joel M. Halpern wrote: > The message below represents a common (and probably appropriate) mailing > list policy now being used by the ForCES working group. > > The reason I am copying the ICAR list is that policies like this have an > impact on some (but not all proposed) cross-area review mechanisms. It > seems likely that many early reviewers will not be active working group > participants and will not want to receive all working group email. I > would hope that reviewers will be willing to discuss their reviews and > concerns with the working group. > With anti-spam policies that are frequently used here, there are > obstacles / delays in the way of that dialog. > It seems likely that in any review proposal which would be affected by > this we should recommend mechanisms for working groups to use to > minimize the impact (for example, white-listing reviewers.) > Just a suggestion as a participant. > > Yours, > Joel > > >> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:32:36 -0700 >> Reply-To: "Putzolu, David" >> Sender: Forwarding and Control Element Separation >> >> From: "Putzolu, David" >> Subject: Change to ForCES List Moderation Policy >> To: FORCES@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM >> >> All, >> >> Due to the high volume of non-subscriber spam, the >> ForCES list configuration is being changed as follows. >> >> - Previously non-subscriber mail was reviewed by the >> chairs and forwarded if appropriate >> + Going forward, non-subscriber mail will be automatically >> rejected. Non-subscribers must contact me or Patrick >> (dro@zurich.ibm.com) directly to have their email >> forwarded to the list. >> >> Handling of subscriber posts remains unchanged, that is, >> all subscriber posts are verified via a nonce to the >> sender, then posted to the list. >> >> The ForCES mailing list moderation policy is fully >> explained at: >> http://www.sstanamera.com/~forces/mailing.html >> >> -David > > > > _______________________________________________ > Icar mailing list > Icar@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar > _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 28 09:30:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14934 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIoyK-0003bV-Tk for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:19:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3SDJWc4013848 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:19:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIomQ-0000GE-4f for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:07:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13458 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIomO-0002jF-6Y for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:07:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIolT-0002eX-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:06:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIoky-0002Yf-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:05:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIoaa-0006k4-Q0; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIoYZ-0006Jr-K2 for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12889 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIoYY-00020k-5m for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIoXa-0001yC-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:51:55 -0400 Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.154]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIoX3-0001ue-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:51:22 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.1]) by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SCooYO064286 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:50:50 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i3SConHI102556 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:50:50 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-169-29.de.ibm.com [9.145.169.29]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA60664 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:50:49 +0200 Message-ID: <408FA8B6.30704@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:51:02 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: icar WG References: <200404221939.PAA22326@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200404221939.PAA22326@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt This is an interesting concept and I agree it is worth a try. How will this apply to non-WG drafts? One element of SIRs that is missing, if we implemented both this and draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt, is the notion of continuity. SIRs suggested that a reviewer should stay with a document through its life. If we set up both WG review teams (for early review) and Area review teams (for late review), we will lose this continuity. Also, we run a risk of not finding enough reviewers to staff all these teams. Two details: (end of section 2) > A committee is formed by consultation between the WG chairs and > shepherding AD. The WG chairs generate a list of potential members, > and discuss with the AD about who might be appropriate. After an > agreed upon list of members has been generated, the WG chairs > contact the committee members to assess their willingness to serve. I would add here that there will be a pointer to the team from the WG's charter page. (in section 4) > One issue that arose with the Seamoby review committees is that > because the WG is not obliged to accept the review committee's > opinion, even if the review committee members are senior and > respected people, there is no guarantee that problems identified by > the review committee will be addressed by the WG. This is in > contrast to review committees for academic conferences and journals, > where authors are typically required to address points raised during > peer review, or their paper will not be published. Firstly, this is really only an issue for late review and IESG approval - if is known to have ignored early review comments, that will be a strong common-sense signal to the late reviewers and the IESG. Secondly, the best defense against this problem is to put all the reviews into a public archive. I think this goes for *any* review system we put in place - all reviews should be hyperlinked from a master page for the I-D in question. Brian _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 30 20:01:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14265 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJhvc-0003x9-3n for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:00:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4100Nxg015178 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:00:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJhor-0002j4-Fs for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:53:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13932 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJhop-0003Oj-NK for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:53:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJhnt-0003JC-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:52:25 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJhn8-0003EF-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:51:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJhfk-0001IT-JX; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:44:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJhcF-0006KV-2E for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:40:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13448 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJhcD-0002AG-AP for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:40:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJhbG-00024F-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:39:22 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJhaO-0001tq-00 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:38:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AD06226F; Sat, 1 May 2004 01:37:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17758-05; Sat, 1 May 2004 01:37:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4477E61BAD; Sat, 1 May 2004 01:37:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:56:35 -0700 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Cc: icar@ietf.org Message-ID: <159749067.1083333395@localhost> In-Reply-To: <697DAA22C5004B4596E033803A7CEF44024DC130@daebe007.americas.nokia.com> References: <697DAA22C5004B4596E033803A7CEF44024DC130@daebe007.americas.noki a.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Icar] Re: Comments on draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 30. april 2004 13:49 -0500 Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote: > > Comments on: draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt > > 1. Since the standardization process will require WG documents to be > now routed through the review team, it would be quite important to > ensure that there is the equivalent support (that the IESG gets > today from the secretariat) for the review team as well. But maybe > this is process detail that can be dealt with later. Yes. it is also important that this support be consistent across teams, and be based as much as possible on reasonably automated processes, not people -otherwise we probably can't afford it. > > 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! > > 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 Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar