Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] team update

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:45:54 -0600

At the Stockholm meeting, Eric Burger asked me if I could take over
leadership of the apps-review team from him. Because Lisa and Alexey
were so convincing, I agreed. Here's what I've been up to:

1. Moved our web page to http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/13

2. Currently recruiting all AppsArea WG chairs to join the team so that
we have a larger team roster and thus a smaller load on each member

Thanks to Marc Blanchet, Eliot Lear, Xiadong Lee, Enrico Marocco, and
Aaron Stone for answering the call for help. Expect more team members soon.

Next, I'll start sending out requests to review a few documents in our
queue, first among them:

draft-bryan-metalink
draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions

If you would like to step forward to review one of those I-Ds, please
let me know, otherwise I will start pinging people individually.

And of course if you have suggestions for ways to improve the
apps-review team (e.g., a template for reviews, a page for tracking
review assignments, etc.), please do send them along.

Thanks!

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:10 -0700

Hi Peter,
>review assignments, etc.), please do send them along.

The reviews are described as "semi-formal reviews of Internet-Drafts 
as a way to improve the quality of IETF specifications".  The current 
procedure is for the author to request a review.  The target audience 
is ill-defined.  Authors who are not familiar with the IETF may not 
be aware of apps-discuss.

I suggest doing the reviews to help the Apps AD.  That narrows down 
the target audience and makes the review informational instead of 
"authors must change their proposal as this review says so".  In 
addition to review requests, it might be good to identify drafts that 
have an impact on the Apps Area.  That could be done as a second 
stage if the team has the energy to do the work.

The subject of the email when submitting the review could be 
"apps-team review of draft-name".  The email could be copied to 
document authors, the WG chairs (if applicable), the Document 
Shepherd, the apps-discuss mailing list and the apps-review mailing list.

It would be good if the review is not a substitute for reviews from 
outside the Apps Area team.  If I have read the different iterations 
of an I-D, I might not notice some mistakes.  I probably won't pick 
an I-D in here if I commented on it previously.

The above is more of a "think about it" and not a review.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:00:08 +0000

SM wrote:

> is ill-defined.  Authors who are not familiar with the IETF may not be 
> aware of apps-discuss.
>
> I suggest doing the reviews to help the Apps AD.

This is indeed the intend. Just like SecDir or GenArt reviews.

> That narrows down the target audience and makes the review 
> informational instead of "authors must change their proposal as this 
> review says so".  In addition to review requests, it might be good to 
> identify drafts that have an impact on the Apps Area.  That could be 
> done as a second stage if the team has the energy to do the work.
>
> document authors, the WG chairs (if applicable), the Document Shepherd,

Indeed, don't forget the shepherd.

> the apps-discuss mailing list and the apps-review mailing list.

Either one of these would be fine as far as I am concerned.