Mike's assessment seems reasonable to me.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:36 AM
To: C. M. Heard
Cc: IETF; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); GEN-ART
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181
Hi,
As devoted readers may have noticed, quite a few Gen-ART reviews
have been copied to this list recently, with follow-up postings
in some cases.
Is this a good or a bad thing?
Comments welcome.
Brian (as General AD)
___
Ietf mailing list
Brian,
As a recent victim of a Gen-ART review, I can only say that it improved
the quality of the RFC-to-be (thanks, Spencer!). And the reviews might
encourage other people to read the draft that might not otherwise had a
chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them coming!
Cheers,
Andy
On
Brian,
I think it would be a bad thing if it was a general rule.
At the level/frequency applied to date, it's a good thing.
Thanks!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13,
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
As a recent victim of a Gen-ART review, I can only say that it
improved the quality of the RFC-to-be (thanks, Spencer!). And the
reviews might encourage other people to read the draft that might not
otherwise had a chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them coming!
My experience is that Gen-ART reviews are very useful. Whether they
need
to be posted to this list or not is another question. I think they
would
be just as useful without the posting, but I like to at least see the
initial review. I don't think the issues need to be resolved on this
list,
Mark Baugher schrieb:
My experience is that Gen-ART reviews are very useful. Whether they need
to be posted to this list or not is another question. I think they would
be just as useful without the posting, but I like to at least see the
initial review. I don't think the issues need to be
I think that Gen-ART reviews should be treated like any other IETF
Last Call comments. The reviews themselves are very useful,
especially when the assignment causes cross-area review. However, I
do not think that the reviews carry the same weight as other IETF
Last Call comments. As such,
At 4:47 PM +0100 2/13/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
Mark Baugher schrieb:
My experience is that Gen-ART reviews are very useful. Whether they need
to be posted to this list or not is another question. I think they would
be just as useful without the posting, but I like to at least see the
initial
[Rending after correcting a silly typo...]
I think that Gen-ART reviews should be treated like any other IETF
Last Call comments. The reviews themselves are very useful,
especially when the assignment causes cross-area review. And, I
think that the reviews carry the same weight as other
Brian,
My view may be no surprise to you.
All reviews (including GenArt) and the subsequent discussions should be
copied to *some* mailing list so that the whole process is both public and
archived.
Copying the WG mailing list would be best, but may be a pain because the
reviewer is not
On Tuesday, February 13, 2007 08:33:44 PM + Adrian Farrel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main IETF mailing list is a compromise, but not particularly good as
it may obscure the other traffic on the list.
Oh, yes; it would be a shame if discussion of documents in IETF Last Call
caused
Adrian Farrel wrote:
The main IETF mailing list is a compromise, but not particularly good
as it may obscure the other traffic on the list.
I think obscuring the other traffic on this list with information
pertinent to the primary purpose of this organization is a good thing.
Eliot
On Monday, February 12, 2007 10:26:13 AM -0800 C. M. Heard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC
4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the
Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents.
I disagree with this
A modified charter has been submitted for the SIP for Instant Messaging
and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)working group in the Real-
time Applications and Infrastructure Area of the IETF. The IESG has not
made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below
for
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Transport Area.
The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft
charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only.
Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by
February 19th.
+++
16 matches
Mail list logo
