Subject: [apps-review] Apps review team review request template

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:18:58 -0400

Hi, SM.
Seeing how many reviewers post their reviews to apps-review prompts me
to suggest a change to the up-front paragraph of your review request
template.  I suggest this (example taken from a recent review
request):

--------------------------------------------------
OLD
Pete requested a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18.  The review has
been assigned to you and is due before September 4.

NEW
Pete requested a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18.  The review has
been assigned to you and is due before September 4.  Please post your
review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to apps-review.
--------------------------------------------------
OLD
The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the IESG, the
WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable.

NEW
The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the IESG, the authors, the
WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable.  You can use the tools
alias [email-masked] to cover the authors,
chairs, and shepherd.  If your review recommends significant changes
to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the
working group's mailing list.

Suggested distribution:
   To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
   cc: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------

I think that makes it easier for the reviewers to get it right, and
not all the reviewers know how to use the tools aliases, so I think
this will help.  Want to try it?

I would also update the wiki, but I can't see how to (can you tell
me?).  If you want to, here's my suggestion for
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template

--------------------------------------------------
OLD
This page provides a template for reviews provided by members of the
Apps-Review Team.
Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list and make
sure to cc the author(s) of the specification you are reviewing! You
might also want to check out some samples, such as the reviews of
draft-wahl-ldap-p3p, draft-ietf-btns-c-api,
draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis, draft-merrick-jms-uri, and
draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.

NEW
This page provides a template for reviews provided by members of the
Apps-Review Team.

Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list
([bold]not[/bold] to the apps-review list), and to the ".all" tools
alias for the specification you are reviewing (see below)!  In cases
where your review recommends significant changes to a working-group
document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing
list.

You might also want to check out some samples, such as the reviews of
draft-wahl-ldap-p3p, draft-ietf-btns-c-api,
draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis, draft-merrick-jms-uri, and
draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.

Suggested distribution list for reviews:
   To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
   cc: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------

Barry

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:56:37 -0700

Hi Barry,
>template.  I suggest this (example taken from a recent review

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.  I'll use your new text.

As a general comment, we send the review to apps-discuss as it has a 
wider readership.

Ok.

General comment, some of the reviews are early reviews, i.e. they are 
performed before a Last Call has been initiated.  It is easier to ask 
for a change and less work for the author/working group.  I don't ask 
for a Cc to the IESG in such cases.  If the Apps ADs or anyone thinks 
that it is appropriate to also copy the IESG in such cases, please let me know.

I would like to ask you whether it is worth picking editorial nits in 
an early review.

>    To: [email-masked], [email-masked]

I will try that.

>me?).  If you want to, here's my suggestion for

Please ask Ned for a login for http://www.apps.ietf.org/user/  If 
anyone needs a login, feel free to email me.

>    To: [email-masked], 
> [email-masked]
>    cc: [email-masked]

That looks good.  I posted your change.  Feel free to edit it.

Should the examples be updated?

BTW, if you have notice any drafts from other areas that might 
benefit from an early review, please let me know.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:11:40 -0400

> As a general comment, we send the review to apps-discuss as it has a wider
> readership.

Yes, I know.  And when people post their reviews to apps-review
instead, you wind up having to forward them to apps-discuss.  Better
if we can fend that off.

> performed before a Last Call has been initiated.  It is easier to ask for a
> change and less work for the author/working group.  I don't ask for a Cc to
> the IESG in such cases.  If the Apps ADs or anyone thinks that it is
> appropriate to also copy the IESG in such cases, please let me know.

No, I think it's fine as it is.  Obviously, you'd adjust your text
accordingly, recommending a cc to the IESG or not, as appropriate.

> I would like to ask you whether it is worth picking editorial nits in an
> early review.

I think it's not.  I would mention pervasive or significant editorial
points (for example, if something is consistently wrong through the
document, or if the grammar is particularly bad, such that another
editor with better English skills should be added), but I wouldn't
bother picking small points in an early review.

> Please ask Ned for a login for http://www.apps.ietf.org/user/  If anyone
> needs a login, feel free to email me.

Ah.  So this isn't plugged into the regular tools wiki, then?  Can
that be changed?  Or should we leave it?  What do the ADs think?

Barry

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:51:31 -0700

Hi Barry,
>bother picking small points in an early review.

Thanks for the advice.  I am going to follow it.

>that be changed?  Or should we leave it?  What do the ADs think?

No, www.apps.ietf.org is not part of IETF infrastructure or run by 
the Tools teams.  I had a short discussion about that with the Apps 
ADs last year.  I preferred to leave it.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:10:59 +0100

>template.  I suggest this (example taken from a recent review
This make sense.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:49 +0900

Just for the record - As one of the recent offenders, and probably the 
one who triggered this proposal, I agree with these changes.

What I did when I wrote up the review was to look at an older example 
and follow that. Apparently, that was also mistaken, or was too old.

One thing I did which we currently don't say anything about is that I 
cc'ed the WG in charge of the document. This is mostly because if I'm in 
a WG that gets a review (e.g. security, gen-art), I'd also like to see 
these.

What do others think?

Regards,   Martin.

On 2011/09/24 0:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-review mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:48:56 -0400

Martin says...
> One thing I did which we currently don't say anything about is that I cc'ed
> the WG in charge of the document. This is mostly because if I'm in a WG that
> gets a review (e.g. security, gen-art), I'd also like to see these.

I did mention that, in my original message that you quoted, and it's

Barry