From mailman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 1 08:36:55 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01683 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COcbe-0007J9-RM for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:52:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COZfe-0005Vv-11 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:44:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: icar-web-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:17:38 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 List-Id: Mailman site list X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: mailman-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. ********************************************************************** NOTE WELL: Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3667 and RFC 3668. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 3667 for details. ******************************************************************************* If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for icar-web-archive@ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- icar@ietf.org duicez https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/icar/icar-web-archive%40ietf.org From icar-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 5 15:17:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13636 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:17:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQAmZ-00036N-Ln for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:34:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQAQm-0005VP-RJ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:11:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQAGV-0005TJ-Hg for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:00:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11470 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.thingmagic.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQAWI-0002jw-2e for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:17:15 -0500 Received: from [10.0.0.75] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 187115 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:54:43 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:00:26 -0500 To: icar@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Subject: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Hi All, (Writing just as an interested participant...) I've been watching the evolution of ICAR, and it seems like we aren't succeeding in building a centralized structure for early review. I think that there are a number of reasons for this, the most pertinent of which (IMO) is that a WG is not the right vehicle to develop and manage a program. So, I have some ideas for directions that ICAR could take that don't involve building a centralized review infrastructure, so they might be more suitable to (1) Document cross-area review criteria. This would help to educate authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for. (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops directorate, etc.) to get early review for their documents? Maybe this could be a proposed "July 14" experiment? Thoughts? Margaret _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Sat Nov 6 17:27:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10936 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQZ1j-000871-OC for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:27:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQYvc-0006aB-RP; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:21:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQYvA-0006Ft-Mn for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:20:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10201 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.136]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQYvL-0007ri-I7 for icar@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:20:46 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA6MJweg119068; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:19:58 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iA6MJvBO063566; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:19:58 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-135-204.de.ibm.com [9.145.135.204]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA48084; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:19:56 +0100 Message-ID: <418D4E0A.8030504@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:19:54 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Hi All, > > (Writing just as an interested participant...) > > I've been watching the evolution of ICAR, and it seems like we aren't > succeeding in building a centralized structure for early review. I > think that there are a number of reasons for this, the most pertinent of > which (IMO) is that a WG is not the right vehicle to develop and manage > a program. > > So, I have some ideas for directions that ICAR could take that don't > involve building a centralized review infrastructure, so they might be > more suitable to > > (1) Document cross-area review criteria. This would help to educate > authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for. > > (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review > resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops directorate, > etc.) to get early review for their documents? Maybe this could be a > proposed "July 14" experiment? These are both good suggestions. I wonder if the charter of the TOOLs effort can be twisted a bit to host this work. It's interesting that we've had two damp squibs (SIRs and now apparently ICAR) but MIB doctoring, GEN-ART etc seem to be working nicely. Brian _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 7 15:59:14 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24546 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 15:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQu8S-0003rW-06 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:59:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQtuT-00052z-KS; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:45:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQtqH-0002yG-HZ for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:40:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22892 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 15:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQtqg-0003Nr-HJ for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:41:18 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA7KeK8D016343 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:40:21 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <4M32T4AX>; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:40:19 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15505A98572@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Brian E Carpenter , Margaret Wasserman Subject: RE: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:40:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 > > (1) Document cross-area review criteria. This would help to educate > > authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for. > > > > (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review > > resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops directorate, > > etc.) to get early review for their documents? Maybe this could be a > > proposed "July 14" experiment? > > These are both good suggestions. I wonder if the charter of the TOOLs > effort can be twisted a bit to host this work. It's interesting that > we've had two damp squibs (SIRs and now apparently ICAR) but MIB > doctoring, GEN-ART etc seem to be working nicely. > I would hate to loose MIB doctor cycles though. We are not staffed enough to even handle all MIB reviews in a timely fashion at the moment. Bert > Brian _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 7 23:50:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04813 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CR1U8-0005g5-Hx for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:50:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CR1Sp-0006hM-On; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:49:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CR1Lu-00060S-K6 for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04494 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:41:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CR1MD-0005Yg-FQ for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:42:31 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (unknown[130.129.135.144]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004110804411701400rf51de> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 04:41:18 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c4c54d$4cdd9440$90878182@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: Subject: Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 22:42:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Hi All, > > (Writing just as an interested participant...) > > I've been watching the evolution of ICAR, and it seems like we > aren't succeeding in building a centralized structure for early > review. I think that there are a number of reasons for this, the > most pertinent of which (IMO) is that a WG is not the right vehicle > to develop and manage a program. I could not, of course, agree more with this statement. I think I know the reasons, but they are off-topic for ICAR. > > So, I have some ideas for directions that ICAR could take that don't > involve building a centralized review infrastructure, so they might > be more suitable to > > (1) Document cross-area review criteria. This would help to educate > authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for. Somewhere between ICAR, NEWTRK/ISD, and Gen-ART there's an idea trying to get out - please be patient while I try to explain this... As a Gen-ART reviewer, I'm finding protocols and enhancements that are split across multiple documents that really don't hang together in a way that makes sense. Most recently, I was asked to review a protocol specification and an associated packet format specification - together, these documents define ONE protocol, but both documents had independent security sections, and these sections were different. Imagine the excitement of an implementor trying to figure out if one, or the other, or both, or neither are right in ten years. It's really not fair to point stuff like this out on the Tuesday before a document is on an IESG telechat agenda, but when/where SHOULD we point it out? > > (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review > resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops > directorate, etc.) to get early review for their documents? Maybe > this could be a proposed "July 14" experiment? In all fairness, ICAR was chartered pre-July14, so the only "legal" way forward was to develop a full BCP before implementing the BCP procedures to find out if they actually work! July14 - now approved as BCP 93, RFC 3933 , and coming soon to an RFC mirror near you - has as its goal gathering experimental experience with process changes before publishing the usual BCP document - and specifically calls out opportunities for trials in one or two corners of the IETF, rather than mandating deployment to the entire IETF community at once, as a normal BCP document would do. So, I agree completely. > > Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 07:20:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27093 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CR8Wb-0006hq-I0 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 07:21:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CR8Ut-0006za-Tm; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 07:19:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CR8R0-0006bv-4p for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 07:15:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26706 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CR8RW-0006aB-Pq for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 07:16:19 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iA8CF6h09577; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:15:10 +0200 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:15:06 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > So, I have some ideas for directions that ICAR could take that don't involve > building a centralized review infrastructure, so they might be more suitable > to > > (1) Document cross-area review criteria. This would help to educate authors > and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for. Good idea. > (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review resources > (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops directorate, etc.) to get > early review for their documents? Maybe this could be a proposed "July 14" > experiment? Also agree here. People actually already *try* this kind of thing, but the directorate addresses and other contact information is not well maintained (in http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/directorates.html the "broadcast addresses" are not mentioned). FWIW, the ICAR process is IMHO really critical for getting the quality better and taking some sweat off the IESG's back. Let's see if we can still find ways to motivate (or do some arm-twisting) of people to get on board. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 10:21:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18431 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:21:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRBLS-0003t3-KV for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:22:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRBDK-0004Hf-Rl; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:13:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRAyb-0003Xq-U6 for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:58:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15590 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRAz0-0003BY-CM for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:59:12 -0500 Received: from [130.129.133.92] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 7906950 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:57:48 -0500 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20041108095627.03b67ec0@localhost> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:57:46 -0500 To: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction In-Reply-To: <002c01c4c54d$4cdd9440$90878182@DFNJGL21> References: <002c01c4c54d$4cdd9440$90878182@DFNJGL21> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Note that we have not waited for the working group to even fully approve the document before trying to make the experiment happen. My concern, speaking personally, is that the community does not seem very interested in actually seeing a well defined pool of early reviewers happen. Yours, Joel At 11:42 PM 11/7/2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >In all fairness, ICAR was chartered pre-July14, so the only "legal" way >forward was to develop a full BCP before implementing the BCP procedures >to find out if they actually work! July14 - now approved as BCP 93, RFC >3933 , and coming soon to an RFC >mirror near you - has as its goal gathering experimental experience with >process changes before publishing the usual BCP document - and >specifically calls out opportunities for trials in one or two corners of >the IETF, rather than mandating deployment to the entire IETF community at >once, as a normal BCP document would do. So, I agree completely. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 11:05:40 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24486 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRC23-0005Hv-88 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:06:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRBev-00066d-L1; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:42:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRBTS-00024R-DG for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:30:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19709 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRBTz-00046T-RH for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:31:05 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (unknown[130.129.135.144]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20041108152955015006lv85e> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:29:55 +0000 Message-ID: <00b501c4c5a7$e9d95040$90878182@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <002c01c4c54d$4cdd9440$90878182@DFNJGL21> <6.1.2.0.0.20041108095627.03b67ec0@localhost> Subject: Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:30:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joel, > Note that we have not waited for the working group to even fully > approve the document before trying to make the experiment happen. Thanks to you and Mark for not letting process get in the way of progress :-) Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 12 09:20:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05019 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CScIq-0000yP-0c for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:21:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CSc65-0002K1-7G; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:08:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CSc40-0001mU-CK for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:06:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03896 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSc5D-0000co-U6 for icar@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:07:34 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (unknown[130.129.135.144]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004111214052601300rmsnpe>; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:05:26 +0000 Message-ID: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "ICAR Mailing List" Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:06:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My apologies in advance for reporting what seems like a coherent idea that popped out during discussions with Pekka and Joel last night, but I'd like to suggest a next step for ICAR that takes into account some realities we're facing here. - we need experience with ICAR reviews before nailing down new process BCPs, - we have some ICAR reviewers signed up, but probably not enough to do ICAR IETF-wide yet, - we have a lot of reasons to do ICAR reviews, so I think we need to focus on one to get started - I'm making structural suggestions during document reviews for Gen-ART ("late reviews"), that people agree are helpful but WAY too late in the process, - we evolve our specifications from individual contributions under author control to working group documents under working group control, in most cases, and - we don't even have a BCP that talks about what it means to "adopt a draft as a working group". Howzabout we - identify an AD who is willing to commit one or more working groups as experiment fodder, - assign ICAR reviewers to any individual drafts that are adopted as WG items - review for document structure and completeness THEN, so draft-ietf-WG-mumble-00.txt is always our best effort, and - report the reviews and experiences with this experiment in Minneapolis? This has the advantage of doing something now with the resources that we have now ("contents may settle due to shipping"). Thoughts and comments? Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 14 01:20:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29357 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTDlm-0000We-K7 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:21:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTDVF-0003Ti-HY; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:04:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTDO4-0002Ww-Ai for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:57:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27969 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTDPn-0007u2-Lk for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:59:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7DB61C1B; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 06:56:49 +0100 (CET) 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 31051-10; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 06:56:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC6761BDE; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 06:56:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:20:30 -0500 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Spencer Dawkins , ICAR Mailing List Subject: Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR Message-ID: <99BABBE88AACBD9FCD65A33C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> In-Reply-To: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> References: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (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 X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit one further suggestion..... why wait for permission, or to be asked? Why not perform the wg-00 reviews, archive them, and build experience that way? If we can build on a body of experience that says "these wg-00 reviews were done, these wg-00 reviews were helpful", I think persuading WG chairs and ADs - AND potential reviewers - that this is a beneficial procedure to be followed will be easier. Vigilante Reviewers Of Oncoming Material, anyone? (VROOM!) --On 12. november 2004 09:06 -0500 Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Howzabout we > > - identify an AD who is willing to commit one or more working groups > as experiment fodder, > - assign ICAR reviewers to any individual drafts that are adopted > as WG items > - review for document structure and completeness THEN, so > draft-ietf-WG-mumble-00.txt is always our best effort, and > - report the reviews and experiences with this experiment in > Minneapolis? > > This has the advantage of doing something now with the resources that > we have now ("contents may settle due to shipping"). _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 14 12:28:14 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27114 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTOCX-0007s4-ET for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTO7c-0005DS-9A; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:25:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTO1S-0004Te-57 for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:18:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26630 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTO3H-0007Uz-8Y for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:20:35 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAEHIZJ2061359; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:18:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id iAEHIYrI061358; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:18:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:18:34 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR In-Reply-To: <99BABBE88AACBD9FCD65A33C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> Message-ID: <20041114100640.O60832@measurement-factory.com> References: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> <99BABBE88AACBD9FCD65A33C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: ICAR Mailing List X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > why wait for permission, or to be asked? Why not perform the wg-00 > reviews, archive them, and build experience that way? While, in theory, every draft can be reviewed, reviewing a document that is not ready/meant for review can be a waste of time or even annoying to the WG. Since IETF process assigns special value to -00 versions drafts with respect to F2F meeting deadlines, reviewing those would be especially risky. If all drafts had a "State of this draft" notices or at least "please review" flags, we could select drafts that are ready/meant for external review. Until then, I would suggest at least asking the WG whether they think a review of a given WG draft version would be useful. $0.02, Alex. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 14 12:36:13 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27885 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTOKG-0008BW-TJ for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:38:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTODW-0005ru-0F; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:31:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTOAQ-0005UX-4u for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:27:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27104 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTOCF-0007re-Jq for icar@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:29:52 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAEHRuJ2061707; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:27:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id iAEHRuPZ061706; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:27:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:27:56 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction In-Reply-To: <418D4E0A.8030504@zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20041114101954.L60832@measurement-factory.com> References: <418D4E0A.8030504@zurich.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> (1) Document cross-area review criteria. This would help to >> educate authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for. >> >> (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review >> resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops >> directorate, etc.) to get early review for their documents? Maybe >> this could be a proposed "July 14" experiment? > > These are both good suggestions. I wonder if the charter of the > TOOLs effort can be twisted a bit to host this work. It's > interesting that we've had two damp squibs (SIRs and now apparently > ICAR) but MIB doctoring, GEN-ART etc seem to be working nicely. I agree that the Tools team can document interfaces and/or suggest tools to support review processes (e.g., solicitation, archival, and linking of reviews). However, it looks like Mark is doing a "good enough" job already, and we would need more data/experience to design something more permanent. On the other hand, I would not task the Tools team to document review criteria or to develop solicitation process for Chairs. Doing that seems too far from the current Tools charter. Alex. P.S. I am speaking as a Tools team member, but do not claim to represent team's position. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 15 08:08:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23030 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTgd8-0006jg-Ey for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTgTU-0004eN-Tc; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:00:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTgMq-0003XQ-7d for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:54:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21708 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTgOq-0006Az-5f for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:56:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CAD61B92; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:53:28 +0100 (CET) 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 07894-04; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:53:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D5E61A93; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:53:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:53:28 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Alex Rousskov , Brian E Carpenter Subject: Tools? (Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction) Message-ID: <90A0817794F914F2E2716B6B@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <20041114101954.L60832@measurement-factory.com> References: <418D4E0A.8030504@zurich.ibm.com> <20041114101954.L60832@measurement-factory.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --On s=F8ndag, november 14, 2004 10:27:56 -0700 Alex Rousskov=20 wrote: >> These are both good suggestions. I wonder if the charter of the >> TOOLs effort can be twisted a bit to host this work. It's >> interesting that we've had two damp squibs (SIRs and now apparently >> ICAR) but MIB doctoring, GEN-ART etc seem to be working nicely. > > I agree that the Tools team can document interfaces and/or suggest tools > to support review processes (e.g., solicitation, archival, and linking of > reviews). However, it looks like Mark is doing a "good enough" job > already, and we would need more data/experience to design something more > permanent. Just checking..... Mark - do you feel that your "prototype" infrastructure can support a=20 serious "freewheeling" review effort, or would you have to invest more=20 effort in it before it's "routinely usable"? Harald _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 15 08:16:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23500 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTgkg-0006sa-MJ for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:18:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTggP-00078W-Mh; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:14:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTgcZ-0006J5-DH for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23126 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTgeY-0006lU-Ft for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:12:19 -0500 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 iAFDAA29091018; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:10:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2392277A9D5; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:09 -0500 (EST) To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand From: Mark Allman Subject: Re: Tools? (Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction) In-Reply-To: <90A0817794F914F2E2716B6B@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Sweet Emotion MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:09 -0500 Message-Id: <20041115131009.2392277A9D5@guns.icir.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: icar@ietf.org, Brian E Carpenter , Alex Rousskov X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mallman@icir.org List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1555535930==" Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 --===============1555535930== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain > Mark - do you feel that your "prototype" infrastructure can support a > serious "freewheeling" review effort, or would you have to invest more > effort in it before it's "routinely usable"? Let's use what I have. If past indications are anything to go by, "freewheeling review effort" won't be so tough on the tool. (More of my thoughts later in the day.) allman --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBmKqxWyrrWs4yIs4RAqzSAJ9MSm2xDw8ADbUbfsFgUo05iD0prgCgiNeC YBLxFvAzdRRcQKZdpUzRiOo= =+2qx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============1555535930== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar --===============1555535930==-- From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 15 17:26:31 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19509 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:26:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTpL0-0004IV-3d for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:28:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTpAd-00051B-VW; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:17:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTp6R-0003Fz-HC for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:13:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18415 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTp8U-00041K-UX for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:15:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAFMD4i25782 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:13:04 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:13:04 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: ICAR Mailing List Subject: Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR In-Reply-To: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> Message-ID: References: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > This has the advantage of doing something now with the resources that > we have now ("contents may settle due to shipping"). > > Thoughts and comments? One additional concern on ICAR: if there is no "ICAR manager" (such that I have been calling for), the likely result is either that the folks will try to get the reviews from the minority who are known to produce good (and critical) reviews, or from that class of reviewers, who are known to not be too critical about their business. Either way is bad: the first for loading the best reviewers and not educating the others; the second for not actually delivering a good review and giving an impression that review has been conducted. In any case, approaching people 1-on-1 is likely to result in longer timeouts if the first person(s) don't reply immediately, promise to review but don't deliver, requiring you to start from scratch, etc. So, my thoughts are: 1) motivation for being a reviewer is a bit lacking. There was idea to create yet another 'dot'. Maybe this would be enough. Did this get dropped? This is probably needed at least after an experimental phase. 2) an ICAR 'manager' might help in managing the pool, at least at a later phase. 3) let's try to find a pool of 5-10 people: that should be enough to bootstrap an experiment with about 2 WGs per major areas (I'd hope). That said, because I believe this is an important issue, I'm willing to volunteer though I'm too busy with other IETF activities as it is. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 15 21:27:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08993 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTt5o-0000X9-8F for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:29:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTt2u-0006pl-Or; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:26:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CTsz2-0006DP-Il for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:22:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08684 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTt18-0000Rd-V7 for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:28 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-29.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.29]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004111602213901400g5d4ie> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:21:39 +0000 Message-ID: <0b1101c4cb83$219fc690$90878182@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "ICAR Mailing List" References: <08b301c4c8c0$c76641a0$90878182@DFNJGL21><99BABBE88AACBD9FCD65A33C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <20041114100640.O60832@measurement-factory.com> Subject: Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:22:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > While, in theory, every draft can be reviewed, reviewing a document > that is not ready/meant for review can be a waste of time or even > annoying to the WG. Since IETF process assigns special value to -00 > versions drafts with respect to F2F meeting deadlines, reviewing > those would be especially risky. > > If all drafts had a "State of this draft" notices or at least > "please review" flags, we could select drafts that are ready/meant > for external review. Until then, I would suggest at least asking the > WG whether they think a review of a given WG draft version would be > useful. I swear that somewhere between me and Alex there's a reasonable idea trying to get out... >From my perspective, I'm late-reviewing documents on the IESG telechat agenda for Harald (with the rest of Gen-ART). Almost every telechat, I make a suggestion for a document change that, I honestly believe, would help implementers, but I'm making it WAY too late in the process. In my favorite recent example, I reviewed the DNSSEC documents, a three-doc package that included an introduction (excellent idea!), a protocol spec, and a packet format spec. I'm almost sure that a protocol spec and the packet format spec should have the same security considerations section, but these two documents didn't (interestingly, all three DID have the same acknowledgements section, by value in the introduction and by reference in the other two, so it's not like I'm inventing a concept no one ever thought of). I suggested "do the same thing for security considerations, which matters a whole lot more to the Internet than the acknowledgements", but I was making a reasonable request for a change to text that had been last-called, AD-evaluated, and was being IESG-reviewed as I was typing - no reasonable AD would take the suggestion and reset the document back to "AD watching" (or worse). So all DNSSEC implementers get to read two security considerations sections and decide which one is right, if both are right, or if neither are right - from now on. And I can't imagine that loose security considerations for secure DNS is a feature! So - I was looking for a place to park suggestions like this, a lot earlier in the process. We have just about no definition of "becoming a WG draft" in our processes, so I was thinking that if we tied a review to "becoming a WG draft", that would make sense. I hear what Alex is saying about making sure that WG 00 drafts don't get stalled because someone is waiting for a review. The mechanics I see in WGs today are - somebody writes a draft, and may cycle it more than once, - the workgroup adopts it as a WG draft, and this seems to be something we do most often at/near an IETF meeting, - the draft gets resubmitted with a new name (draft-ietf-WGname-*-00.txt) What I was thinking was, requesting a review of the individual draft before it's submitted as a WG draft, which gives a reviewer just about a full IETF meeting cycle (obviously sooner is better, especially if the draft is being actively worked between IETF meetings). And the kind of review I'm thinking about here, is the kind that says "what's the relationship between this draft and other drafts? published RFCs? will there be IANA considerations? does the draft stand on its own? how much background can the editor assume?" If I got Allman to do this kind of review for my TCP-ish draft, and he pointed out all the places I was confused about TCP, that would be a bonus - but I think getting an idiot like me to do this kind of review for a TCP-ish draft would still be an improvement. And, obviously, I'm not thinking this is gating for a WG to have a 00 draft, and obviously, I'm not thinking the reviewer is any kind of gatekeeper requiring specific changes. I'm thinking about a high-level, optional review... Others may be solving other problems using other tools, of course :-) Spencer _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 16 09:44:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03462 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU4bg-0006yU-Nm for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:46:56 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU4VX-0005qm-J2; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:40:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU4LF-0003zT-Rh for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:29:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02438 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU4NT-0006eT-AU for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:32:15 -0500 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 iAGETt29008852; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:29:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5409577AA12; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:29:54 -0500 (EST) To: Spencer Dawkins From: Mark Allman Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? In-Reply-To: <0a1c01c4b979$20412c60$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Eight Days a Week MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:29:54 -0500 Message-Id: <20041116142954.5409577AA12@guns.icir.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mallman@icir.org List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1458936207==" Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 --===============1458936207== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain > My sponsoring organization really liked the marketing aspects of > supporting "Senior Internet Reviewers". I can explain to my sponsoring > organization why I participate in directorates, and I can explain why > I participate in an Area Review Team. Given a finite number of hours > in the day... I want to drill on this. I don't get it at all. I can see the obvious appeal of "senior...". But, the rest of the above you say you can "explain" (e.g., you can explain participation in a directorate (that does not have a sexy name)). So, if you can explain and justify directorate work then why can't you explain ICAR work? I am trying to figure out if there is something fundamental here that is causing problems. Thanks! allman --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBmg7iWyrrWs4yIs4RAqUjAJ0Yxmc5FOaAOQ81EW2+HITR5rmlSQCdGvAg o+P97nms2fR5lrd76gyOwzY= =cWeb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============1458936207== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar --===============1458936207==-- From icar-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 16 10:55:11 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12213 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU5hy-0000Jy-44 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:57:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU5di-0007co-Nr; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:53:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU5Zw-0006W5-RK for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:49:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11579 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:49:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU5c6-00008D-RB for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:51:31 -0500 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 iAGFmVxX230148; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:48:31 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.212]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iAGFmSdK112858; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:48:29 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (dyn-9-13-126-72.ge.ch.ibm.com [9.13.126.72]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA69110; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: <419A214C.5040509@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:48:28 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mallman@icir.org Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? References: <20041116142954.5409577AA12@guns.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20041116142954.5409577AA12@guns.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My guess is that to corporate suits, "directorate" sounds like a control point and "review" sounds passive. If we can find a way of making "review" sound as important as we believe it to be, that will help. Brian Mark Allman wrote: >>My sponsoring organization really liked the marketing aspects of >>supporting "Senior Internet Reviewers". I can explain to my sponsoring >>organization why I participate in directorates, and I can explain why >>I participate in an Area Review Team. Given a finite number of hours >>in the day... > > > I want to drill on this. I don't get it at all. > > I can see the obvious appeal of "senior...". But, the rest of the above > you say you can "explain" (e.g., you can explain participation in a > directorate (that does not have a sexy name)). So, if you can explain > and justify directorate work then why can't you explain ICAR work? I am > trying to figure out if there is something fundamental here that is > causing problems. > > Thanks! > > allman > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 icar-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 16 11:02:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13049 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU5pB-0000Up-6l for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:04:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU5kg-0000Oi-Lu; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:00:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU5g3-00083B-Mr for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:55:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12258 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU5iG-0000KF-Aj for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:57:50 -0500 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 iAGFtO29009791; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:55:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org) Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7740E77AA12; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:55:23 -0500 (EST) To: Brian E Carpenter From: Mark Allman Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? In-Reply-To: <419A214C.5040509@zurich.ibm.com> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Eight Days a Week MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:55:23 -0500 Message-Id: <20041116155523.7740E77AA12@guns.icir.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mallman@icir.org List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0705008731==" Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 --===============0705008731== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain > My guess is that to corporate suits, "directorate" sounds like a > control point and "review" sounds passive. If we can find a way of > making "review" sound as important as we believe it to be, that will > help. ICAR Directorate? I understand that the name is not sexy. But, I my question to Spencer stands because he said he could "explain" other activities enough to justify them, but seemed to indicate that may not be the case with ICAR. And, so I am wondering if it's a sexiness thing or whether it's more fundamental. Thanks, allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBmiLrWyrrWs4yIs4RAiboAJ9fC8bXjYRnZ34l/SOQygapmkwHNgCfUz/R roJuLY/yegIUn6yqta1JW7U= =jOGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============0705008731== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar --===============0705008731==-- From icar-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 16 11:17:09 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14438 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU63F-0000sE-Cq for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:19:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU5t9-0001XO-WB; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:09:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU5r7-0001C1-IS for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13417 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU5tK-0000a6-VY for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:09:16 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2004 08:21:21 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com [171.71.163.34]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iAGG6Fw0011435 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:06:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-2-83.cisco.com [10.86.242.83]) by mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with SMTP id AVQ58063; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:18 -0500 From: Scott W Brim To: icar@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? Message-ID: <20041116160618.GE516@sbrim-w2k02> Mail-Followup-To: Scott W Brim , icar@ietf.org References: <419A214C.5040509@zurich.ibm.com> <20041116155523.7740E77AA12@guns.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20041116155523.7740E77AA12@guns.icir.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2042585497==" Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 --===============2042585497== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw" Content-Disposition: inline --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 10:55:23AM -0500, Mark Allman allegedly wrote: >=20 > > My guess is that to corporate suits, "directorate" sounds like a > > control point and "review" sounds passive. If we can find a way of > > making "review" sound as important as we believe it to be, that will > > help. >=20 > ICAR Directorate? >=20 > I understand that the name is not sexy. But, I my question to Spencer > stands because he said he could "explain" other activities enough to > justify them, but seemed to indicate that may not be the case with > ICAR. And, so I am wondering if it's a sexiness thing or whether it's > more fundamental. I was intending to get back to this mail later today, and at that time to list all the reasons why reviews are important, select a couple of them, and suggest naming a "function" (maybe directorate) after them. Instead I'm tossing out the idea in hopes that one of you will do it :-) --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFBmiV6F0TR2hENFAQRArImAKDX6wjYUo4ozCFMwZz+B7x9O9LssQCfWRwO /BFjt+863+uDb+Coi22HAiI= =0uZe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wac7ysb48OaltWcw-- --===============2042585497== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar --===============2042585497==-- From icar-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 16 12:43:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23387 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU7P2-000366-Jw for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:46:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU75G-0006xk-V3; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:25:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CU6zC-0004eX-Jp for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:19:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21176 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:19:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CU71Q-0002SH-C5 for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:21:41 -0500 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAGHJ0J2088679; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:19:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) To: "Brian E Carpenter" , mallman@icir.org Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? References: <20041116142954.5409577AA12@guns.icir.org> <419A214C.5040509@zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:19:00 -0700 From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <419A214C.5040509@zurich.ibm.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (FreeBSD, build 751) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2004/11/16 (MST), wrote: > My guess is that to corporate suits, "directorate" sounds > like a control point and "review" sounds passive. If we can > find a way of making "review" sound as important as we believe > it to be, that will help. How about a name with a "gatekeeper" in it? IETF Gatekeepers? Sexy, important enough? There does not have to be much truth in the name, I guess. It is all marketing. Alex. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 16 22:43:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02249 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUGlO-0004c7-Tp for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:45:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUGi2-0004qM-Ah; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:42:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUGe0-00040y-9Q for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:38:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01397 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:38:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUGgJ-0004Sy-SH for icar@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:40:33 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-29.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.29]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004111703373001400gaooke> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:37:30 +0000 Message-ID: <108e01c4cc56$db2fc050$90878182@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <20041116142954.5409577AA12@guns.icir.org><419A214C.5040509@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:38:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Icar] Why I haven't signed up for ICAR X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to repeat what's already been said more than once on this list - we haven't spent much time thinking about actually attracting reviewers. Harald asked me to serve on the General Directorate. Harald asked me to serve on the General Area Review Team. Call me silly, but that was a big deal for me, both times. Ted Hardie pointed out the "Ambulance Syndrome" in a plenary presentation at IETF 58(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/slides/plenary-4.pdf, slide 8). Ted was right when it said it, no one argued with him then, but now it's a year later, and we're still making general appeals to a large group, and we're surprised when everyone thinks someone else has taken on the task. And the "we" in the previous paragraph isn't "Mark and Joel" :-) Spencer p.s. SIR was different, for me, because Dave was pitching it to me as "outside the hierarchy" - not part of the IESG -> AD -> WG chair -> WG food chain, but a group focused on architecture and evolution of the Internet as a whole. Sorry it didn't work out. _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 17 04:37:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04729 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUMI1-00041m-P2 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:39:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUMED-0006Qp-Hl; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:35:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUM4i-0003sW-Bg for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:26:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03457 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUM74-0003ht-Uh for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:28:32 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.81]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAH9PJxD031832; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:25:19 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.213]) by d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iAH9PLKS035250; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:25:21 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-132-76.de.ibm.com [9.145.132.76]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA69418; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: <419B18FC.1080203@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:25:16 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mallman@icir.org Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? References: <20041116155523.7740E77AA12@guns.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20041116155523.7740E77AA12@guns.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Allman wrote: >>My guess is that to corporate suits, "directorate" sounds like a >>control point and "review" sounds passive. If we can find a way of >>making "review" sound as important as we believe it to be, that will >>help. > > > ICAR Directorate? > > I understand that the name is not sexy. But, I my question to Spencer > stands because he said he could "explain" other activities enough to > justify them, but seemed to indicate that may not be the case with > ICAR. And, so I am wondering if it's a sexiness thing or whether it's > more fundamental. Cross Area Review Directorate (Has the advantage of reviving one of the buzzwords from SIRs.) Brian _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar From icar-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 17 12:48:08 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24094 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUTx3-0007Wo-SY for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:50:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUTp4-0002dY-30; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:42:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUTeU-0000Tb-Pi for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:31:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22566 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13] ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUTgt-00076k-OP for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:34:03 -0500 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (llynch@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAHHVP3H023675; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (llynch@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id iAHHVMJr023480; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:31:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:31:22 -0800 (PST) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Icar] icar futures? In-Reply-To: <419B18FC.1080203@zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20041116155523.7740E77AA12@guns.icir.org> <419B18FC.1080203@zurich.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: icar@ietf.org X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Mark Allman wrote: > >>My guess is that to corporate suits, "directorate" sounds like a > >>control point and "review" sounds passive. If we can find a way of > >>making "review" sound as important as we believe it to be, that will > >>help. > > > > > > ICAR Directorate? > > > > I understand that the name is not sexy. But, I my question to Spencer > > stands because he said he could "explain" other activities enough to > > justify them, but seemed to indicate that may not be the case with > > ICAR. And, so I am wondering if it's a sexiness thing or whether it's > > more fundamental. > > Cross Area Review Directorate > > (Has the advantage of reviving one of the buzzwords from SIRs.) CrossDrSirs ? _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar