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
, 2007 7:34 AM
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: About Gen-ART reviews
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
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
:33 PM
Subject: About Gen-ART reviews
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
