Subject: Re: [apps-review] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:44:03 -0800

Hi John,

[following up on apps-review]

At 23:20 26-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
>Remember too that, as Mark has already pointed out in a
>different way, the main point of a provisional registration is
>to lower the odds that the same protocol identifier string will
>be used to designate two different protocols.

Mark and you have commented on this case.  There was a comment from 
Larry ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02096.html ).

>I am not advising this in any way and I personally don't think
>it would be worth the effort, but, in the interest of procedural
>knowledge and consistency, RFC 2026 does give anyone who feels
>strongly about this decision the right to appeal it.

I suggest talking to the Apps Area Directors before taking that path.

When a request for review come from the Apps Area Directors, I pick a 
reviewer for the assignment.  There was a case where the document was 
over 300 pages and there was a short deadline.  I mentioned to the 
ADs that it would be too much work and they agreed not to request a 
review by the team.  The assignment task generally works like this:

  (a) Receive request for review

  (b) Verify whether the document is relevant to the Apps Area
      and that there is a team member with the expertise to
      perform the review

  (c) Assign the review to a team member

  (d) Add the document to the Apps Area Review tracker

  (e) Send out reminders to the reviewer

  (f) Update the Apps Area Review tracker once the review is submitted

I think that the Apps Area Directors find the reviews useful or else 
they would not have asked for it.  Some authors respond to the 
reviews.  For example:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01740.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01814.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01828.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01835.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02124.html

The Apps Area Team reviews are also copied to the IESG as an AD asked 
for that after he read one of the Apps Area reviews.  The reviews are 
also read by future authors and it can help them when they write an 
Internet-Draft.

It has been difficult to get all the reviews done.  I value the 
contributions made by Tim and all members of the team.  I may voice 
my discontent to the Apps Area ADs if a reviewer mentions that 
his/her work is not given any consideration.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:13:31 -0800

Hi John,
At 10:24 27-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
>Talking with the Apps Area Directors is the first (and normally
>last) step on that path.  The difference is only the level of
>formality.  Remember that the purpose of the IETF Appeals model
>is to get a careful second look at areas of disagreement and to
>attempt to see if agreement can be reached, not to initiate or
>proceed with a judicial function of any sort.

Yes.

>I don't believe that anything improper has occurred in the
>review process or even in the IESG decision.   I appreciate your

Yes.

>I do believe that, if people feel strongly that accepting the
>document and registration was a seriously bad idea, even after
>they are sure they understand the nature of a provisional
>registration, then they should try to understand the IESG's
>reasoning from the Apps ADs and/or ask that the decision be
>reviewed.

My comments are not from a provisional registration angle.  It has 
been quite an effort to jump-start the team and to get the reviewers 
to do the assignments.  There were 36 assignments that have been 
completed and four I-Ds are still pending review.  If I do not help 
the reviewers get more information about the reasoning, there may be 
a feeling that doing the assignments is not worth the time and effort.

Being Team Lead can either be viewed as a career path or about 
helping the team.  I prefer to do the latter.  Based on my short 
experience of working with Alexey and Peter, I can say that they have 
helped a lot in getting the team working and they do take the reviews 
seriously.  Alexey has already replied to Tim's comment off-list.

>It would also be quite reasonable for people who find themselves
>in that position to request additional text -- in a revised
>announcement statement, in the registry, or in the document as
>it will be published -- to suggest that.  Whether that could be
>negotiated with the Apps ADs or required a formal appeal would
>be up to the ADs and the IESG.
>
>I am not personally convinced that either trying to get a
>different decision or trying to get more clear disclaimers or
>warnings into the text would be worthwhile.  But the IETF is
>periodically accused of having procedures that work only for
>those who know how to use them and I periodically feel an
>obligation to explain possibly-useful procedures to those whose
>only other recourse would be whining and/or ranting.

Thanks for explaining the procedures.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:03:35 -0800

On 28/01/2011, at 7:13 AM, SM wrote:

>>  But the IETF is

Perhaps we need a document like the TAO, but more detailed/advanced; sort of a TAO Stage II.

--
Mark Nottingham       [email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:24:38 -0500

--On Thursday, January 27, 2011 09:44 -0800 SM
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> to lower the odds that the same protocol identifier string
>> will be used to designate two different protocols.
> 
> Mark and you have commented on this case.  There was a comment
> from Larry (
>> it would be worth the effort, but, in the interest of
>> procedural knowledge and consistency, RFC 2026 does give
>> anyone who feels strongly about this decision the right to
>> appeal it.
> 

> When a request for review come from the Apps Area Directors, I
> pick a reviewer for the assignment.  There was a case where
> the document was over 300 pages and there was a short
>...
> It has been difficult to get all the reviews done.  I value
> the contributions made by Tim and all members of the team.  I
> may voice my discontent to the Apps Area ADs if a reviewer
> mentions that his/her work is not given any consideration.

review of the history.

    john

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:59:57 +0300

Hi,
[Slowly replying to messages in this thread while on holidays.]

SM wrote:

> they would not have asked for it.

Indeed, I can confirm that Peter and I read reviews and take them into 
consideration. Maybe we should explicitly acknowledge that we do, 
especially in situations when editors of documents also read reviews but 
don't reply to them.

I can also say that as an AD, I am really grateful to these reviews, as 
I believe they improve quality of documents that Apps ADs need to 
sponsor or review.

Thank you,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address