Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407073A6C06 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:36:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGx9npl-fjWM for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFDE3A6C01 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q5Jwy-000GNY-LH; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:38:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:38:19 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Pete Resnick , Dave Cridland Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D94819D.2080904@qualcomm.com> References: <4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> <4D94819D.2080904@qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Apps Area Review List Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:36:51 -0000 --On Thursday, March 31, 2011 15:29 +0200 Pete Resnick wrote: > On 3/31/11 3:21 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On Thu Mar 31 13:27:05 2011, John C Klensin wrote: >>> Olaf is determined to have the [A]RSE do as little as >>> possible >> >> Acting RFC Series Editor? >> >> Might want to reconsider that acronym. > > Olaf has been sporting a brown dot on his badge this week. The title was, indeed, chosen with due consideration. john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88823A6AEA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzrmjQDW-BJt for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE5D3A6A92 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.87.14] (dhcp-570e.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.87.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2VE89Vv005536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:08:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4D948AC4.4090508@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:08:04 +0200 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cridland References: <4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> In-Reply-To: <4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Apps Area Review List Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:06:40 -0000 On 3/31/2011 3:21 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Thu Mar 31 13:27:05 2011, John C Klensin wrote: >> Olaf is determined to have the [A]RSE do as little as possible > > Acting RFC Series Editor? > > Might want to reconsider that acronym. Olaf is quite proud of it and chose the dot on his badge to be brown. However I'm told that he is eager to have the RSE, so that Olaf can become the Former Acting RSE. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B2828C153 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:27:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1JlYqnlD37zl for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBF428C139 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:27:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1301578150; x=1333114150; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4D94819D.2080904@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Th u,=2031=20Mar=202011=2015:29:01=20+0200|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Dave=20Cridland=20|CC:=20John=20C=20Klensin=20,=20J oe=20Hildebrand=0D=0A=09,=20SM =20,=20Apps=20Area=20Review=20List =0D=0A=09|Subject:=20Re:=20[apps-re view]=20Apps=20Area=20review=20Team=20status|References: =20=09=20<4126.1301577706.890904@pu ncture>|In-Reply-To:=20<4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" =3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.48.1]; bh=tkMBjlxv/HaTH8XoinR9pwlXHVd3Hy8sN3hyziQr4Js=; b=PLKnMwGMkS4aoFncAdLkwPp8/3b4DcJbtpkdPukM6PnqtE7mo8FERzRj pz3uA588LRnHgP2cSzelNXCwLg74+H3dlqpPsKJYrV8FwtJ6IAPnLZfnU mtiXDCpL/DVT62AG3ARKiEPr18DAoD7wqc+KLIDoRd56V3w9Jv3tvBlcA I=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6301"; a="83153416" Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2011 06:29:09 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,271,1299484800"; d="scan'208";a="129900403" Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.2]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Mar 2011 06:29:09 -0700 Received: from dhcp-24da.meeting.ietf.org (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:04 -0700 Message-ID: <4D94819D.2080904@qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:29:01 +0200 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cridland References: <4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> In-Reply-To: <4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: Apps Area Review List Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:27:31 -0000 On 3/31/11 3:21 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Thu Mar 31 13:27:05 2011, John C Klensin wrote: >> Olaf is determined to have the [A]RSE do as little as possible > > Acting RFC Series Editor? > > Might want to reconsider that acronym. Olaf has been sporting a brown dot on his badge this week. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600D928C0D6 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:20:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.306 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.293, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0XuTdf0VNF4 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9C03A6B0E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318D41168087; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:21:52 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7pb4YZy2FyKk; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:21:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DE0D71168067; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:21:46 +0100 (BST) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <4126.1301577706.890904@puncture> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:21:46 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: John C Klensin , Joe Hildebrand , SM , Apps Area Review List Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:20:20 -0000 On Thu Mar 31 13:27:05 2011, John C Klensin wrote: > Olaf is determined to have the [A]RSE do as little as possible Acting RFC Series Editor? Might want to reconsider that acronym. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7C43A6B13 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pz64y1zT6vhG for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1103A6AFA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q5Gxu-000EOE-Ma; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:27:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:27:05 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Joe Hildebrand , SM , apps-review@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:25:30 -0000 --On Thursday, March 31, 2011 07:47 +0200 Joe Hildebrand wrote: > On 3/31/11 6:33 AM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > >> There has been a lot of theorizing about how much time the >> RSOC will take. I think one fairly safe answer is "less >> after we get an RSE selected, hired, and settled in than >> before that", but that is not a quantitative answer. We ill >> have to see. > > I'm hoping there's also a burst of activity required to deal > with RFC formats. I'm still trying to wait patiently for > "spring" to have that conversation. Olaf is determined to have the [A]RSE do as little as possible and certainly nothing that will have long-term effects on the Series. That means he will probably facilitate the various reporting and other ongoing activities, deal with emergencies and questions that require immediate answers. That is not a secret -- he said as much during Monday's plenary. It is unclear whether the RSOC could overrule him on that (probably not), but I think I'm safe in predicting that it won't try. "spring" was based on having a permanent RSE appointed well before the TRSE term expired, i.e., in December or early January, and then having a couple of months for that person to settle in. As you have noticed (or heard Monday night), that appointment didn't happen and we haven't even started a search yet. "Spring" may still be realistic, but probably in the Southern Hemisphere :-) john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC42D28C13F for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:24:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1UymaDalTVA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B0A28C112 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.20.248] (dhcp-14f8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.20.248]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:26:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4D9464D2.5000103@isode.com> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:26:10 +0200 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> <4D9447E7.4010309@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4D9447E7.4010309@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: app-chairs@tools.ietf.org, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:24:55 -0000 Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 3/31/2011 10:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >> One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD candidates >> in the Area. > > Is that a make-vs-buy question? Absolutely :-). Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E872628C23B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:23:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gXAF1AR+ONS for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA7F28C1A9 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.87.14] (dhcp-570e.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.87.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2V9Mp29028642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:22:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4D9447E7.4010309@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:22:47 +0200 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: app-chairs@tools.ietf.org, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:23:51 -0000 On 3/31/2011 10:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD candidates in the Area. Is that a make-vs-buy question? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222A328C11B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:55:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AShXpGBtOykl for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0ACB28C1AE for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55937116808D; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:28 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBuueXtd-Ooe; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A68CB1168067; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:26 +0100 (BST) References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> <4126.1301561356.815529@puncture> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <4126.1301561846.685264@puncture> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:26 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: "Murray S\. Kucherawy" , Alexey Melnikov , Apps Area Review List , "app-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:55:51 -0000 On Thu Mar 31 09:55:17 2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:49 AM > > To: Alexey Melnikov; Apps Area Review List; > app-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps > Review Team lunch in Prague > > > > On Thu Mar 31 09:44:54 2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD > > > candidates in the Area. > > > > Apparently we simply need to ensure we have as many Peters as > > possible. > > Should we adopt the pony tail or bald-with-goatee as the standard > APPS ambassador image? Bald-with-ponytail. That'll confuse those guys in SEC. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBD628C0FE for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:54:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.809, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxeBE9SJLQ-P for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537AC28C0DC for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:56:20 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Dave Cridland , Alexey Melnikov , Apps Area Review List , "app-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:55:17 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague Thread-Index: AcvvgIpb7LrAkV7GQYein7pJUWwbDwAAJ6Ng Message-ID: References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> <4126.1301561356.815529@puncture> In-Reply-To: <4126.1301561356.815529@puncture> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:54:48 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Dave Cridland > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:49 AM > To: Alexey Melnikov; Apps Area Review List; app-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review T= eam lunch in Prague >=20 > On Thu Mar 31 09:44:54 2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD > > candidates in the Area. >=20 > Apparently we simply need to ensure we have as many Peters as > possible. Should we adopt the pony tail or bald-with-goatee as the standard APPS amba= ssador image? Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325F128C0E7 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:47:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qrl0nsmGT1Y1 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111C63A6AFA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE901168090; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:49:18 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+1KsTZ6hQYc; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:49:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C7167116808D; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:49:16 +0100 (BST) References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <4126.1301561356.815529@puncture> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:49:16 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: Alexey Melnikov , Apps Area Review List , "app-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:47:44 -0000 On Thu Mar 31 09:44:54 2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD > candidates in the Area. Apparently we simply need to ensure we have as many Peters as possible. Dave. -- Dave^WPeter Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48F228C0DC for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:47:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VNC7JWqUsz0p for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86A43A6AFA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-12cb.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-12cb.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.203]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5066D40022; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:51:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4D944005.1030202@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:49:09 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms030906070303080205020905" Cc: app-chairs@tools.ietf.org, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:47:32 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms030906070303080205020905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/31/11 10:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD candidates in= > the Area. I'd like to chat about better ways we can deploy the apps talent we have to help folks in non-apps working groups. Pete and I have been jabbering about that this morning while I've been sitting in (and somewhat helping folks in) the SIPREC WG session. Peter --=20 Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ --------------ms030906070303080205020905 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIITzjCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICASMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDMzM1oXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDMzM1owgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALmjSW4SPiDKlAinvVeL ZOVfItiuP1aRHL530E7QUc9icCwL33+PH+Js1HAh8CgWFl34sOxx1FJyS/C4VLPRsqDfP72j tzCVUAL0DAxZ7wgzQvFz7x61jGxfhYhqYb1+PPOLkYBbkRIrPMg3dLEdKmXIYJYXDH+mB/V/ jLo73/Kb7h/rNoNg/oHHSv5Jolyvp5IY2btfcTBfW/telEFj5rDTX2juTvZ3Qhf3XQX5ca3Q 7A10zrUV/cWJOJ7F5RltbEIaboZmX5JBUb3FhUiAdBotehAX6DbDOuYoJtVxmGof6GuVGcPo 98K4TJf8FHo+UA9EOVDp/W7fCqKT4sXk/XkCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggIBAGpd SbdLFMhirxK37V4gE00+uW74UdAXtDgQI3AsRZWtaRtKHgAxFBSteqz4kDkeAjH/1b+K8tQR 6cxSI2nho7qOaPW/UpzOfSS/MeKK/9vfM2lfs+uItXH7LWtvS9wD1erfH1a+BXHCrCp4LA1l fADDhRIiGTSS3i0Zu5xV3INNRHrCCCl6patltQ8RZTqzDMri7ombgIxjN51Zo7xV77EZcThV 0GA8iIN+7T53uHhUJpjfLIztHs/69OclRvHux9hCflfOm7GY5Sc4nqjfES+5XPArGGWiQSEk ez37QfXqsxO3oCHK4b3DFZysG4uyOuC/WL80ab3muQ3tgwjBhq0D3JZN5kvu5gSuNZPa1WrV hEgXkd6C7s5stqB6/htVpshG08jRz9DEutGM9oKQ1ncTivbfPNx7pILoHWvvT7N5i/puVoNu bPUmLXh/2wA6wzAzuuoONiIL14Xpw6jLSnqpaLWElo2yTIFZ/CU/nCvvpW1Dj1457P3Ci9bD 0RPkWSR+CuucpgxrEmaw4UOLxflzuYYaq1RJwygOO5K0s2bAWOcXpgteyUOnQ3d/EjJAWRri 2v0ubiq+4H3KUOMlbznlPAY/1T8YyyJPM88+Ueahe/AW1zoUwZayNcTnuM7cq6yBV8Wr3GOI LFXhtT0UVuJLChPMJKVKVsa7qNorlLkMMIIGxzCCBa+gAwIBAgICAIswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJT ZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBD bGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMDEwMTQwMTM2MzRa Fw0xMjEwMTQxMjAxMDdaMIHAMSAwHgYDVQQNExcyNzQ1ODEtOU5YMDRxeExEYjBvNDY5VDEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxLDAqBgNV BAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRowGAYDVQQDExFQZXRl ciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBldGVyLmltMIIBIjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuERvnrkpQTx9wbJfgxbNKEYvt0IilecZRUM6 wrbCzIUPCocuYhaAJcQoqIyHaKybPQ7f+DIGIAolAa3dHnNdlsXP2smTft/ZNpj10PIG5bil NAqLUYwmLJaEaqY7BMW8423U3blW43/luLJk/Pq4OsWcw7AK3LeVh1U/HOgqhin26N3h72X1 nbLEpZFrgcp8egmWtXLCbLBDMqUK3j6wjLldni79muzYEVqU0A5GqSeb8Wc4kIx8VI5yL24J KzinG2iVRP5ZDEbOZETzBXJabUsV56XSxqPG9DK6ke+ybCiL/wKV1HFqdtFB1y25lfvHgOP2 gyEApBKEDNjgLmKyyQIDAQABo4IC+zCCAvcwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYD VR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS2EW2iNB+g0EibKJLBdv8I eLovVDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAdBgNVHREEFjAUgRJzdHBl dGVyQHN0cGV0ZXIuaW0wggFCBgNVHSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAu BggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEF BQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYB BQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNl ZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGljeSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNz bC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNVHR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3Ns LmNvbS9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMy9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczMuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIE HDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADVtbXJG tKAr55xc/OUM546gXUybI72Bank0w739Mv+9BBNtq9rMEvCnLmSKhBi76c1mdXh6zXs8RQDo 6nR/aPabE3llF2T4z80smi9jfnl3y9dpu9TcgDoqDLZ7a2lBlW656XAAQzHjvLp2MC7/mxlg PYH2axa+q40mAYM20GbNsAEGbWQT1IqIh0BcLLsgbaMJHbyG/57zd9JLyMX3Vry1L1fJRQr3 GeLxMV5RtxN+mBgxrwFz/cOc09COiFExlsHgekpB5O43gqsAU16MXypyoSt4MrSfKTMHIGx6 2RF/M6vqUlvhi28gk2ZUvQ/+OX5+gjcZyooEzAAn4RuOKNswggbHMIIFr6ADAgECAgIAizAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4x KzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMT L1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEw MTAxNDAxMzYzNFoXDTEyMTAxNDEyMDEwN1owgcAxIDAeBgNVBA0TFzI3NDU4MS05TlgwNHF4 TERiMG80NjlUMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8GA1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRl bnZlcjEsMCoGA1UECxMjU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxGjAY BgNVBAMTEVBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdHBldGVyQHN0cGV0 ZXIuaW0wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4RG+euSlBPH3Bsl+DFs0o Ri+3QiKV5xlFQzrCtsLMhQ8Khy5iFoAlxCiojIdorJs9Dt/4MgYgCiUBrd0ec12Wxc/ayZN+ 39k2mPXQ8gbluKU0CotRjCYsloRqpjsExbzjbdTduVbjf+W4smT8+rg6xZzDsArct5WHVT8c 6CqGKfbo3eHvZfWdssSlkWuBynx6CZa1csJssEMypQrePrCMuV2eLv2a7NgRWpTQDkapJ5vx ZziQjHxUjnIvbgkrOKcbaJVE/lkMRs5kRPMFclptSxXnpdLGo8b0MrqR77JsKIv/ApXUcWp2 0UHXLbmV+8eA4/aDIQCkEoQM2OAuYrLJAgMBAAGjggL7MIIC9zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFLYRbaI0 H6DQSJsoksF2/wh4ui9UMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFHuJnJKXJKGERwLLdPwu9KzcMuXzMB0GA1Ud EQQWMBSBEnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCAUIGA1UdIASCATkwggE1MIIBMQYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgIwggEgMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUu cGRmMIG3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCBqjAUFg1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMAMCAQEagZFMaW1pdGVkIExp YWJpbGl0eSwgc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRD b20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGMGA1UdHwRcMFowK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcw AoY2aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy5jbGllbnQuY2Eu Y3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEANW1tcka0oCvnnFz85QznjqBdTJsjvYFqeTTDvf0y/70EE22r2swS8KcuZIqEGLvp zWZ1eHrNezxFAOjqdH9o9psTeWUXZPjPzSyaL2N+eXfL12m71NyAOioMtntraUGVbrnpcABD MeO8unYwLv+bGWA9gfZrFr6rjSYBgzbQZs2wAQZtZBPUioiHQFwsuyBtowkdvIb/nvN30kvI xfdWvLUvV8lFCvcZ4vExXlG3E36YGDGvAXP9w5zT0I6IUTGWweB6SkHk7jeCqwBTXoxfKnKh K3gytJ8pMwcgbHrZEX8zq+pSW+GLbyCTZlS9D/45fn6CNxnKigTMACfhG44o2zGCA80wggPJ AgEBMIGTMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UE CxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMAkGBSsOAwIa BQCgggIOMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDMz MTA4NDkwOVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFCXEV5u0bnt9e/7yWBRPCYMZCX95MF8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBpAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGWMIGT MIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xh c3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMIGmBgsqhkiG9w0BCRAC CzGBlqCBkzCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNV BAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgIAizANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQAdwR+x/aGU/S5ZZITmVVrbANtMCvLI3VYJWxp5kUfS6sYGh6wFzkjjZFlN hrFYNDGZymrzGDV0q6PjCFRh6RTk1HSQs8WLV1WYnH6GJ25cTtDvmTT5p5y0uE9bQDT1Pkrk xZCYbhICawW7WCJ73duUYc0d6x6DS4SAI198ghOa+N4OlofQYkwKHFC5cRF9Tnq05/HaZVWX Im2AuT5pZh/XZyJDSdVLpAj00PaendsvjgqnDBT/uawGHjPwOfcvOreZsC8RwDm/Yabwcd0r a6kRDUiR+ey39Pg9kzxxIteWZjDY/zAWgHlOZEq2WGa2nn3MkHfTaY4iRRJ9RU2a6I/1AAAA AAAA --------------ms030906070303080205020905-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D963A6AFA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:44:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j+ibNCRDd4Qy for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D683A680E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.20.248] (dhcp-14f8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.20.248]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:45:14 +0100 Message-ID: <4D943F06.5030602@isode.com> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:44:54 +0200 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: apps-review@ietf.org, app-chairs@tools.ietf.org References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:44:12 -0000 One proposed discussion topic is how to grow more Apps AD candidates in the Area. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CF63A6B1C for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:50:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGx5KQEegPAS for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw1.webex.com (gw1.webex.com [64.68.122.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 16B383A6B1A for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.197]) by gw1.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:51:58 -0700 Received: from 66.114.169.8 ([66.114.169.8]) by SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.200]) via Exchange Front-End Server mailus.webex.com ([66.114.175.11]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:51:57 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:51:55 +0200 From: Joe Hildebrand To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , Peter Saint-Andre , Alexey Melnikov Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague Thread-Index: AcvvchAHnzQI+9pTQTaoemX0RmgShwAAyFwgAADT4zw= In-Reply-To: IM-ID: xmpp:jhildebr@cisco.com Presence-ID: xmpp:jhildebr@cisco.com Jabber-ID: jhildebr@cisco.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2011 07:51:58.0119 (UTC) FILETIME=[82E28B70:01CBEF78] Cc: "app-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:50:20 -0000 I'm in. On 3/31/11 9:28 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:06 AM >> To: Alexey Melnikov >> Cc: app-chairs@tools.ietf.org; apps-review@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team >> lunch in Prague >> >>> It would be good if people reply to tell me whether they are planning >>> to come, so that ADs can estimate the size of the group. >> >> Yes, please reply. > > I'm in. > _______________________________________________ > apps-review mailing list > apps-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review -- Joe Hildebrand Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58D528C234 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:27:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLoX3cDuu4LW for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE94828C22F for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:28:42 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Peter Saint-Andre , Alexey Melnikov Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:28:41 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague Thread-Index: AcvvchAHnzQI+9pTQTaoemX0RmgShwAAyFwg Message-ID: References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "app-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:27:03 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBhcHBzLXJldmlldy1ib3VuY2Vz QGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86YXBwcy1yZXZpZXctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxm IE9mIFBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAzMSwgMjAxMSAx MjowNiBBTQ0KPiBUbzogQWxleGV5IE1lbG5pa292DQo+IENjOiBhcHAtY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnOyBhcHBzLXJldmlld0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2FwcHMtcmV2aWV3 XSBBcHBzIEFyZWEgY2hhaXJzICsgc2VjcmV0YXJpZXMgKyBBcHBzIFJldmlldyBUZWFtIGx1bmNo IGluIFByYWd1ZQ0KPiANCj4gPiBJdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBnb29kIGlmIHBlb3BsZSByZXBseSB0byB0 ZWxsIG1lIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhleSBhcmUgcGxhbm5pbmcNCj4gPiB0byBjb21lLCBzbyB0aGF0IEFE cyBjYW4gZXN0aW1hdGUgdGhlIHNpemUgb2YgdGhlIGdyb3VwLg0KPiANCj4gWWVzLCBwbGVhc2Ug cmVwbHkuDQoNCkknbSBpbi4NCg== Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136EE28C22B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NuXUndjSgMGi for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E7628C207 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2001:760:3800::9227:e4ff:feea:5c7b] ([IPv6:2001:760:3800:0:9227:e4ff:feea:5c7b]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2V7KbLu033105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:20:38 +0200 (CEST) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it p2V7KbLu033105 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=maJXWbivyRql9uidVATQF+KYzsbAcrJ/jv/ad0wAWMOLiZaadfmM5I8wGUDyx2Nj1 cGrOJAz1jQVjgS55S0mkebYQnVKoUF0qR7/5a5DdzoNMXAaktSfwM0uRHC+rBjGDywB yyhOtc/Q/mMCcvEqfUK/2BZhDbHbQMMO38H0E5w= Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:20:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.local To: Peter Saint-Andre In-Reply-To: <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> Message-ID: References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:19:04 -0000 >> Let's meet by the IETF message board. > > I will collect people at the message board while Alexey double-checks > with the restaurant. > >> It would be good if people reply to tell me whether they are planning to >> come, so that ADs can estimate the size of the group. > > Yes, please reply. Sorry, I left yesterday evening, thus I'll miss it. My apologies! Next time! Claudio ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C063A6AFA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:04:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uO9zt9U3FIg for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07FC33A6837 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-12cb.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-12cb.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.203]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 318F340022; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:07:30 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4D9427C2.7060809@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:05:38 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010904020509010607070903" Cc: app-chairs@tools.ietf.org, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:04:02 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010904020509010607070903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/28/11 7:44 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Alexey Melnikov wrote: >=20 >> Folks, >> There would be a traditional Apps lunch, but this time it is going to >> be on Thursday (March 31st) instead of Monday. >> Please mark your calendars and please bring topics you would like to >> discuss to the attention of Peter, Pete and myself. >=20 > Let's meet by the IETF message board. I will collect people at the message board while Alexey double-checks with the restaurant. > It would be good if people reply to tell me whether they are planning t= o > come, so that ADs can estimate the size of the group. Yes, please reply. Peter --=20 Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ --------------ms010904020509010607070903 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIITzjCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICASMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDMzM1oXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDMzM1owgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALmjSW4SPiDKlAinvVeL ZOVfItiuP1aRHL530E7QUc9icCwL33+PH+Js1HAh8CgWFl34sOxx1FJyS/C4VLPRsqDfP72j tzCVUAL0DAxZ7wgzQvFz7x61jGxfhYhqYb1+PPOLkYBbkRIrPMg3dLEdKmXIYJYXDH+mB/V/ jLo73/Kb7h/rNoNg/oHHSv5Jolyvp5IY2btfcTBfW/telEFj5rDTX2juTvZ3Qhf3XQX5ca3Q 7A10zrUV/cWJOJ7F5RltbEIaboZmX5JBUb3FhUiAdBotehAX6DbDOuYoJtVxmGof6GuVGcPo 98K4TJf8FHo+UA9EOVDp/W7fCqKT4sXk/XkCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggIBAGpd SbdLFMhirxK37V4gE00+uW74UdAXtDgQI3AsRZWtaRtKHgAxFBSteqz4kDkeAjH/1b+K8tQR 6cxSI2nho7qOaPW/UpzOfSS/MeKK/9vfM2lfs+uItXH7LWtvS9wD1erfH1a+BXHCrCp4LA1l fADDhRIiGTSS3i0Zu5xV3INNRHrCCCl6patltQ8RZTqzDMri7ombgIxjN51Zo7xV77EZcThV 0GA8iIN+7T53uHhUJpjfLIztHs/69OclRvHux9hCflfOm7GY5Sc4nqjfES+5XPArGGWiQSEk ez37QfXqsxO3oCHK4b3DFZysG4uyOuC/WL80ab3muQ3tgwjBhq0D3JZN5kvu5gSuNZPa1WrV hEgXkd6C7s5stqB6/htVpshG08jRz9DEutGM9oKQ1ncTivbfPNx7pILoHWvvT7N5i/puVoNu bPUmLXh/2wA6wzAzuuoONiIL14Xpw6jLSnqpaLWElo2yTIFZ/CU/nCvvpW1Dj1457P3Ci9bD 0RPkWSR+CuucpgxrEmaw4UOLxflzuYYaq1RJwygOO5K0s2bAWOcXpgteyUOnQ3d/EjJAWRri 2v0ubiq+4H3KUOMlbznlPAY/1T8YyyJPM88+Ueahe/AW1zoUwZayNcTnuM7cq6yBV8Wr3GOI LFXhtT0UVuJLChPMJKVKVsa7qNorlLkMMIIGxzCCBa+gAwIBAgICAIswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJT ZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBD bGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMDEwMTQwMTM2MzRa Fw0xMjEwMTQxMjAxMDdaMIHAMSAwHgYDVQQNExcyNzQ1ODEtOU5YMDRxeExEYjBvNDY5VDEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxLDAqBgNV BAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRowGAYDVQQDExFQZXRl ciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBldGVyLmltMIIBIjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuERvnrkpQTx9wbJfgxbNKEYvt0IilecZRUM6 wrbCzIUPCocuYhaAJcQoqIyHaKybPQ7f+DIGIAolAa3dHnNdlsXP2smTft/ZNpj10PIG5bil NAqLUYwmLJaEaqY7BMW8423U3blW43/luLJk/Pq4OsWcw7AK3LeVh1U/HOgqhin26N3h72X1 nbLEpZFrgcp8egmWtXLCbLBDMqUK3j6wjLldni79muzYEVqU0A5GqSeb8Wc4kIx8VI5yL24J KzinG2iVRP5ZDEbOZETzBXJabUsV56XSxqPG9DK6ke+ybCiL/wKV1HFqdtFB1y25lfvHgOP2 gyEApBKEDNjgLmKyyQIDAQABo4IC+zCCAvcwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYD VR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS2EW2iNB+g0EibKJLBdv8I eLovVDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAdBgNVHREEFjAUgRJzdHBl dGVyQHN0cGV0ZXIuaW0wggFCBgNVHSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAu BggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEF BQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYB BQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNl ZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGljeSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNz bC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNVHR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3Ns LmNvbS9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMy9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczMuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIE HDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADVtbXJG tKAr55xc/OUM546gXUybI72Bank0w739Mv+9BBNtq9rMEvCnLmSKhBi76c1mdXh6zXs8RQDo 6nR/aPabE3llF2T4z80smi9jfnl3y9dpu9TcgDoqDLZ7a2lBlW656XAAQzHjvLp2MC7/mxlg PYH2axa+q40mAYM20GbNsAEGbWQT1IqIh0BcLLsgbaMJHbyG/57zd9JLyMX3Vry1L1fJRQr3 GeLxMV5RtxN+mBgxrwFz/cOc09COiFExlsHgekpB5O43gqsAU16MXypyoSt4MrSfKTMHIGx6 2RF/M6vqUlvhi28gk2ZUvQ/+OX5+gjcZyooEzAAn4RuOKNswggbHMIIFr6ADAgECAgIAizAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4x KzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMT L1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEw MTAxNDAxMzYzNFoXDTEyMTAxNDEyMDEwN1owgcAxIDAeBgNVBA0TFzI3NDU4MS05TlgwNHF4 TERiMG80NjlUMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8GA1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRl bnZlcjEsMCoGA1UECxMjU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxGjAY BgNVBAMTEVBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdHBldGVyQHN0cGV0 ZXIuaW0wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4RG+euSlBPH3Bsl+DFs0o Ri+3QiKV5xlFQzrCtsLMhQ8Khy5iFoAlxCiojIdorJs9Dt/4MgYgCiUBrd0ec12Wxc/ayZN+ 39k2mPXQ8gbluKU0CotRjCYsloRqpjsExbzjbdTduVbjf+W4smT8+rg6xZzDsArct5WHVT8c 6CqGKfbo3eHvZfWdssSlkWuBynx6CZa1csJssEMypQrePrCMuV2eLv2a7NgRWpTQDkapJ5vx ZziQjHxUjnIvbgkrOKcbaJVE/lkMRs5kRPMFclptSxXnpdLGo8b0MrqR77JsKIv/ApXUcWp2 0UHXLbmV+8eA4/aDIQCkEoQM2OAuYrLJAgMBAAGjggL7MIIC9zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFLYRbaI0 H6DQSJsoksF2/wh4ui9UMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFHuJnJKXJKGERwLLdPwu9KzcMuXzMB0GA1Ud EQQWMBSBEnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCAUIGA1UdIASCATkwggE1MIIBMQYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgIwggEgMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUu cGRmMIG3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCBqjAUFg1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMAMCAQEagZFMaW1pdGVkIExp YWJpbGl0eSwgc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRD b20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGMGA1UdHwRcMFowK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcw AoY2aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy5jbGllbnQuY2Eu Y3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEANW1tcka0oCvnnFz85QznjqBdTJsjvYFqeTTDvf0y/70EE22r2swS8KcuZIqEGLvp zWZ1eHrNezxFAOjqdH9o9psTeWUXZPjPzSyaL2N+eXfL12m71NyAOioMtntraUGVbrnpcABD MeO8unYwLv+bGWA9gfZrFr6rjSYBgzbQZs2wAQZtZBPUioiHQFwsuyBtowkdvIb/nvN30kvI xfdWvLUvV8lFCvcZ4vExXlG3E36YGDGvAXP9w5zT0I6IUTGWweB6SkHk7jeCqwBTXoxfKnKh K3gytJ8pMwcgbHrZEX8zq+pSW+GLbyCTZlS9D/45fn6CNxnKigTMACfhG44o2zGCA80wggPJ AgEBMIGTMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UE CxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMAkGBSsOAwIa BQCgggIOMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDMz MTA3MDUzOFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFLdfKRO5BWh/JkU/DoSz1taTIwfkMF8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBpAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGWMIGT MIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xh c3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMIGmBgsqhkiG9w0BCRAC CzGBlqCBkzCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNV BAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgIAizANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQBZx3AHVsugF/l2WVnrSi381MUoxGat1BCdYNcqBB9GhsIQg9vBbPbgasBg mnTXv5ZiN2ff5xMT+GNMB1DnSKD/956+iVSm4fQgDvKxMdURL+SPGAtYQmDqrNsFK8PEh4Uc VagZ/nJYrPv9RgNH6DcawWKilltzB3MBrHJMxr+YdieTmj5JE9CkncvG2EUUE62gPFP9ZWja njLoMO6tBNfypFFb2D2o68L02SF2DMNTb1cL06uTlGICQXy/wWxcUnxQhdwVW/LuAyAS/h7c zfxgCJvEwj1luLRzLqFBxQsxCINysidLFSYQoDhoagI8M8NZUfGMw8G7p1N6VXDzJVRqAAAA AAAA --------------ms010904020509010607070903-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A8F28C1D3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rSisJsctcwd for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw2.webex.com (gw2.webex.com [64.68.122.209]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9899028C1DD for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.197]) by gw2.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:47:36 -0700 Received: from 66.114.169.8 ([66.114.169.8]) by SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.200]) via Exchange Front-End Server mailus.webex.com ([66.114.175.12]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:47:35 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:47:36 +0200 From: Joe Hildebrand To: John C Klensin , SM , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status Thread-Index: AcvvZyMdwrM9T6BeDk6F1WO+9TlvXw== In-Reply-To: <1197A97D01E7D323DD2D0411@PST.JCK.COM> IM-ID: xmpp:jhildebr@cisco.com Presence-ID: xmpp:jhildebr@cisco.com Jabber-ID: jhildebr@cisco.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2011 05:47:36.0124 (UTC) FILETIME=[233077C0:01CBEF67] Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:51:55 -0000 On 3/31/11 6:33 AM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > There has been a lot of theorizing about how much time the RSOC > will take. I think one fairly safe answer is "less after we get > an RSE selected, hired, and settled in than before that", but > that is not a quantitative answer. We ill have to see. I'm hoping there's also a burst of activity required to deal with RFC formats. I'm still trying to wait patiently for "spring" to have that conversation. -- Joe Hildebrand Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067743A69C6 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:31:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UEPDDuqSLwuU for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42AF3A6A28 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q59ZL-00099V-6o; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:33:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:33:14 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: SM , apps-review@ietf.org Message-ID: <1197A97D01E7D323DD2D0411@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110330153043.0cd3f3d0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110330153043.0cd3f3d0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:31:38 -0000 --On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 15:40 -0700 SM wrote: >... > Alexey and John are on RSOC. I leave it to them to determine > whether they would like to extend their leave. There has been a lot of theorizing about how much time the RSOC will take. I think one fairly safe answer is "less after we get an RSE selected, hired, and settled in than before that", but that is not a quantitative answer. We ill have to see. john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15D33A69B3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:26:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mHHCW6UQHoPb for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE10028C1C2 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2V4RmUF018594 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:27:53 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1301545675; bh=SD2XB7jiPkMJAxRcijdUth3ATAM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=NadW58ITzpzx4nC2xROpsNbLwXKFnc7Yvg6cnGSR/q9sBdh4tnU5mmlNYZhYMHH0/ ck0BJEPTorr2YtNxzSzVJnrWhfCX8zsRARjsXX3kPFbDQQIlDjOG4U9pY+xOasjlNE 5OXGpbjMbVG+cYQL94NhvFPVUcvpFtqN8UxTWNYA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110330153043.0cd3f3d0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:40:44 -0700 To: apps-review@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [apps-review] Apps Area review Team status X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:26:19 -0000 Hello, As Eric Burger is still on the IOAC, he is still marked as on leave. Dave Crocker agreed to take on assignments even though he is on the IOAC. John Klensin will be on leave until IETF82 after stepping down from the IAB. Alexey Melnikov will be on leave for the same period after stepping down from the IESG. Alexey and John are on RSOC. I leave it to them to determine whether they would like to extend their leave. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DDA3A6BE0 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DBLeXq9HEeqC for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04B53A6BDD for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2UMR8Wn000464 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:27:18 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1301524039; bh=tcVFhVz/kOMW+VBUPPtNxK3b0K0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=ASLvpJXn99D/Yi2vsccwC9BdCS7BhR/FRuW5aJBOGBS7XJ9qpq55QkocaYq15+m9U R2w31DGaxFmXKcBtCYKYI1kpP3RiNTic5MBu0XxFPFdi4LxbkW98Fsj7dsyOZWqWxU /2Pl6BbwJyQyaRmOKzDAPKAVXFsakMxTYf0mWnn0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110330152204.09b909d8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:26:57 -0700 To: apps-review@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:25:47 -0000 Hi, I am assigning the review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis to myself. The deadline is April 13. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77713A6A93 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yES1R5erwGMx for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.249.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2D13A6A2E for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=A4bTRsE96Xcvh3c5stYOgIVBu09hjTTk7u+PcxOZclTIT4j5IbetxkPbpcBZvJI3t010fo1ylhCXQ90oNbNQKg8ulvkeOzaEWm2PwAaFqLXRGNVhjwtsEA98InjBiwiK; Received: from dhcp-406b.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.64.107]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4g0K-0002bD-Dk; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:59:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-71-1002605722; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329050030.0c0693b8@elandnews.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:59:12 +0200 Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329025706.0bfd44d0@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110329050030.0c0693b8@elandnews.com> To: Larry Masinter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:57:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail-71-1002605722 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On the one hand, not to scare people, but the document is 221 pages = long. On the other hand, the document has been reviewed over the past = two (!) years by RAI, TSV, SEC, GEN, and even our very own Ted & Vijay = doing an APP review back in 2009, so it is fairly baked. Of course, as document shepherd I have a biased opinion. On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:08 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Larry, > At 04:41 29-03-2011, Larry Masinter wrote: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24/ =3D> = The page you were looking for couldn't be found. >=20 > Sorry about that, the document is at = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2/ >=20 >> It's a little daunting to review.... enormously long document = covering a technical area I'm not familiar with, and version 24 of the = document. I'm willing to give this a go, but I wonder if someone whose = done protocol review before would be willing to tag-team with me on the = first few reviews. >=20 > We generally look at the Apps Area angle (URI, XML, etc.). Could = someone[1] volunteer to tag-team with Larry for a few reviews? >=20 > Larry, as you are in Prague, could you encourage someone with the = appropriate beverage to volunteer? :-) >=20 > Thanks, > -sm >=20 > 1. http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team=20 > _______________________________________________ > apps-review mailing list > apps-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review --Apple-Mail-71-1002605722 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILHzCCBN0w ggPFoAMCAQICEHGS++YZX6xNEoV0cTSiGKcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwezELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgMEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBwwHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UECgwR Q29tb2RvIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxITAfBgNVBAMMGEFBQSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTZXJ2aWNlczAeFw0w NDAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yODEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQx FzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsx ITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJz dC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVNNRm5pELlzkniii8efNIx B8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQylbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8 om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXqvgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHG TPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7Nl yP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4IBJzCCASMwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUoBEKIz6W8Qfs4q8p74Klf9AwpLQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59 MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggr BgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwewYDVR0fBHQwcjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC5j b21vZG9jYS5jb20vQUFBQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVTZXJ2aWNlcy5jcmwwNqA0oDKGMGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu Y29tb2RvLm5ldC9BQUFDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZVNlcnZpY2VzLmNybDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAJ2Vyzy4fqUJxB6/C8LHdo45PJTGEKpPDMngq4RdiVTgZTvzbRx8 NywlVF+WIfw3hJGdFdwUT4HPVB1rbEVgxy35l1FM+WbKPKCCjKbI8OLp1Er57D9Wyd12jMOCAU9s APMeGmF0BEcDqcZAV5G8ZSLFJ2dPV9tkWtmNH7qGL/QGrpxp7en0zykX2OBKnxogL5dMUbtGB8SK N04g4wkxaMeexIud6H4RvDJoEJYRmETYKlFgTYjrdDrfQwYyyDlWjDoRUtNBpEMD9O3vMyfbOeAU TibJ2PU54om4k123KSZB6rObroP8d3XK6Mq1/uJlSmM+RMTQw16Hc6mYHK9/FX8wggY6MIIFIqAD AgECAhEAxcM7lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJ BgNVBAgTAlVUMRcwFQYDVQQHEw5TYWx0IExha2UgQ2l0eTEeMBwGA1UEChMVVGhlIFVTRVJUUlVT VCBOZXR3b3JrMSEwHwYDVQQLExhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20xNjA0BgNVBAMTLVVU Ti1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBFbWFpbDAeFw0xMDA5MDgwMDAw MDBaFw0xMTA5MDgyMzU5NTlaMIHhMTUwMwYDVQQLEyxDb21vZG8gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yayAtIFBF UlNPTkEgTk9UIFZBTElEQVRFRDFGMEQGA1UECxM9VGVybXMgYW5kIENvbmRpdGlvbnMgb2YgdXNl OiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNvbW9kby5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeTEfMB0GA1UECxMWKGMpMjAwMyBDb21v ZG8gTGltaXRlZDEUMBIGA1UEAxMLRXJpYyBCdXJnZXIxKTAnBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWGmVidXJnZXJA c3RhbmRhcmRzdHJhY2suY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAqeauFkEq 5Pj7AIAaDRbUWIpoblTKyrjcSfXRaHvjk0jWBTsBPe6oOZjudMK0Vo9A1Sl52BixDgf1/qb2Z+PT 7M0mqSOOsSucEBid48IMvGi79xmKKAVf5jiyFNNAaTZWn76dwNLMkKd/+Ki0fn8kEbb2zG+gGKyZ MNHiNX+GQfPpHyzo2MTwnb16lXMfGJrGv4uLZS/pY9PENdFQnwV0ASZoqX+ArtLY2xeuC+rYG9xQ Cz7qiLbJhCJzWsEGETyHLDjE5bN4HB9DsJKtGFLQuOdTanwGigNz9cVH9pLFNQxiotavAouXgqS4 wGvcq4mGP9w9zTychoUqIKsEg9OD1wIDAQABo4ICHDCCAhgwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUiYJnfcSdJnAA S7RQSHzePa4Ebn0wHQYDVR0OBBYEFAlgEOVj6Hl0La8sPRP388HEMiWvMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMCAGA1UdJQQZMBcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBgsrBgEEAbIxAQMFAjARBglghkgB hvhCAQEEBAMCBSAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgwrBgEEAbIxAQIBAQEwKzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0 cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9DUFMwgaUGA1UdHwSBnTCBmjBMoEqgSIZGaHR0cDovL2Ny bC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZEVtYWls LmNybDBKoEigRoZEaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG8ubmV0L1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0 aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwbAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEYDBeMDYGCCsGAQUFBzAChipodHRw Oi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9VVE5BQUFDbGllbnRDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6 Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAlBgNVHREEHjAcgRplYnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNv bTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEACRTppSEc5DMYn8YXcbfX36iTaNBGw1gUvTNam0U8pXH0E7H3 2d4cTq6DEMu5ifEvxMGBqhUyv0sKxQ7+UvtDwrk7Kiy2L6TUC4zNEklZbtDqY7+Wd7EQZkN4k/zx kMLlz2VIIRL/Cg48NrBKP5bo1la78NTJx8m4+VForLseEBabxMQoWB/GOVC7WpO/+RCgd93gz6H/ RzW1hnK0Uvu5H3Kz7HEC3R1Qk/sE9nXVzTfoJOMJRnyMS5Ut61mgoWSm/kUtczAlRRYh6IBOhzAl awoXz+yk9hMCheYRAWx0EamBBpSzvqXj0N2vXYc62v3e3ddcLZncjiB0pYIfCE3s4DGCA/8wggP7 AgEBMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBD aXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu dXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRp b24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAxcM7lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICDzAYBgkqhkiG9w0B CQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMTAzMjkyMDU5MTNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BDEWBBSZs1RlcyjZc3Ijt2rKQoNst5iHKjCB1QYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHHMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUg VVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQG A1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAxcM7 lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjCB1wYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgceggcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYD VQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1Qg TmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4t VVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQDFwzuU3TOCsDvWZ+r6 wbrGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAJrZPoVbvrtDxaUqC7PrTHg9tl8iiDyRE6g9Rw36Sr1qfKb2 iaDzkpVDiyiRk/4jACfuzEee4b0RNkcSefDgTkG+xHsc9XTYrgMRGhjtXnajQXB4MRuQDtSY01Fc fESzr/JdbSDspLWR9tUQzPcX3BAo5H/oCH9BdnI8skHXO5AZ9Rndw1lf+epwNCoT5OGfGZ9SLXeO rYYGYbQgVRx9OKAdYZaC5SCHCBtgQpS/XnX+xSY/d2xQGjg1ZWyiZWAPvZwHN0yfikQdnnwxLS5n UwZD3WlXoVGHI7vVArNeuCyVqWrIupEl5J1bOtNA+7KjWfNeJpuUK2Hadic/88yLPcsAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-71-1002605722-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6473A6784 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4lFUFP65WVIL for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A28C28C156 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2TC8uFC016010; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:09:02 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1301400543; bh=2l1RoIw8zodgFWCbfstj/MiQJ50=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=v8pi/SVWR84E9G3SPnmot01rng02ZsdId5BPmi+YKz+QYlWOZjfz91Gi2ohiIEpt/ 713n6F3VtLY4ga2Wj6lNfAYd2155VTfgzqHW2hznoAh3EFhKia+Z24Pw2YbPxsucb6 xI7Gld34mUY1uatMUemyhi+8P7MRAtVttvb0Fo+w= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329050030.0c0693b8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:08:44 -0700 To: Larry Masinter From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329025706.0bfd44d0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:07:32 -0000 Hi Larry, At 04:41 29-03-2011, Larry Masinter wrote: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24/ => >The page you were looking for couldn't be found. Sorry about that, the document is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2/ >It's a little daunting to review.... enormously long document >covering a technical area I'm not familiar with, and version 24 of >the document. I'm willing to give this a go, but I wonder if >someone whose done protocol review before would be willing to >tag-team with me on the first few reviews. We generally look at the Apps Area angle (URI, XML, etc.). Could someone[1] volunteer to tag-team with Larry for a few reviews? Larry, as you are in Prague, could you encourage someone with the appropriate beverage to volunteer? :-) Thanks, -sm 1. http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7986628C148 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:39:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDmO0Uc7OmMw for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9468628C156 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZHFWftJrxLffGFH2K/0I2NJXuEhQkpG@postini.com; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:41:19 PDT Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p2TBePES023861; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p2TBf9PY023004; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:41:09 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: SM Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:41:05 -0700 Thread-Topic: Request for review: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 Thread-Index: Acvt+S24NmVb0CpzTo+cCt3t6IJRSwACuvOw Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329025706.0bfd44d0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329025706.0bfd44d0@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:39:42 -0000 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24/ =3D> The p= age you were looking for couldn't be found. =20 although I found the draft fine. It's a little daunting to review.... enormously long document covering a te= chnical area I'm not familiar with, and version 24 of the document. I'm wi= lling to give this a go, but I wonder if someone whose done protocol review= before would be willing to tag-team with me on the first few reviews. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -----Original Message----- From: SM [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:06 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Request for review: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 Hi Larry, Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24. The=20 review has been assigned to you and is due by April 13. If you need=20 more time, please contact me. You can find information about the author and WG in the datatracker (=20 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24/=20 ). Some previous reviews from the Apps-review Team are accessible at=20 http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the IESG, the=20 WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. The subject of the email when submitting the review should be=20 "apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24". If I don't receive an acknowledgement from you within two days, I'll=20 send you a reminder before reassigning the review. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3982C3A693E for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-7OIS9F1Ze1 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6D53A6836 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2TA7kES009221; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:07:52 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1301393273; bh=jc3isfc5hz/qVGxBOmQ7iMf7pF4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=aYHt0ZfDDAOswxC7ms3DTOu3sziflUPQ2OnMGwuJ7SEoMjXNkRRkP+K4jWnC3YB// jzOPU/HAJH/J+Ghzzniul1RJZK0gVd6qupIXbLQbTeZZcywrkpfLpxyfjuukcLVk5z gFdlrmzfeMlgFrgk0u9bUIBIwuBLBcZuyVOOdXzA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110329025706.0bfd44d0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:06:03 -0700 To: Larry Masinter From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:06:20 -0000 Hi Larry, Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24. The review has been assigned to you and is due by April 13. If you need more time, please contact me. You can find information about the author and WG in the datatracker ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24/ ). Some previous reviews from the Apps-review Team are accessible at http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the IESG, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. The subject of the email when submitting the review should be "apps-team review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24". If I don't receive an acknowledgement from you within two days, I'll send you a reminder before reassigning the review. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88013A68A9 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:42:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qoIe5ls3hRKz for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A753A6859 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.20.248] (dhcp-14f8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.20.248]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4D90C8EF.6010401@isode.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:44:15 +0200 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: apps-review@ietf.org, app-chairs@tools.ietf.org References: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:42:54 -0000 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Folks, > There would be a traditional Apps lunch, but this time it is going to > be on Thursday (March 31st) instead of Monday. > Please mark your calendars and please bring topics you would like to > discuss to the attention of Peter, Pete and myself. Let's meet by the IETF message board. It would be good if people reply to tell me whether they are planning to come, so that ADs can estimate the size of the group. Thanks, Alexey Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0413128C166 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:55:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiTdPuaWwvzu for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2BF28C16B for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2MMuVju003842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:56:36 -0700 Message-ID: <4D89291D.7060108@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:56:29 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> <4D88FF69.10006@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322140444.0d7e1dd8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110322140444.0d7e1dd8@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:55:08 -0000 > If everything is working well, is it is > worth the effort to have this discussion and consider the alternative? I believe > it is a good time to do so as we can then have this light-weight discussion. On the average, it's better to have planning and design discussions in the absence of crisis... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C063A6822 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.326 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bp6TA828S6hN for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244893A6820 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.255]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2MMQCe6001681; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:26:18 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300832779; bh=CQ77Z8/02/S+lQHP4bP/lDqc/R4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=TkK2CIKWNZTAi7MxmoeFKsRx2GnXEuvF9HOd/A2/mrgyF0p9ymGmz49apGqwTXt/u fXepxZZQnHvEC46nBcCDO668L8SVYuTWXr4HIvkTVr/Uf65W9bCpeuBxLNnyTQ5JCW XCioLlZBajG5Ll9Gv4GDIeMDMXpHolUpyrV1PA4o= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110322140444.0d7e1dd8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:18 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: SM In-Reply-To: <4D88FF69.10006@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> <4D88FF69.10006@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:24:55 -0000 Hi Dave, At 12:58 22-03-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >And as long as we are dotting the i's and crossing the t's of >delicacy and to o make sure there is no confusion from my >side: None of this is about you or your performance. It's a design >discussion purely. I am reading it as a design discussion. >If anything, as I implied in my previous note, you've distorted the >discussion by having done such a /good/ job. Makes it more >difficult to juggle the possibility of the alternative... Thanks. I'll highlight a previous comment you made "Waiting for someone to burn out is not a great management policy". If everything is working well, is it is worth the effort to have this discussion and consider the alternative? I believe it is a good time to do so as we can then have this light-weight discussion. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527B73A67DF for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:07:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x7D+R2ivEWH9 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B373A67DB for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q29kn-0006Sk-Nb; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:08:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:08:40 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Dave Cridland Message-ID: <0CB50CD06E00FDB67BF1F1A1@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <4D891142.3030209@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> <6266.1300828148.094389@puncture> <4D891142.3030209@dcrocker.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Apps Area Review List Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:07:19 -0000 --On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 14:14 -0700 Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 3/22/2011 2:09 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> Finally, a formal term may well help reduce burn-out - >> instead of "Can I do this position for another day?", the >> question becomes "Can I do this position for another term?" >> which is a lot easier to consider. > > > This is a deceptively important point. As I recall, there's > all sorts of 'psychology of decision making' research to back > it up.' For those who know the reference to the frog in water > that is gradually heated, this is a bit like that. > > Making a decision to continue on a daily basis makes it more > likely that there will be burnout than having to make it once > every 2 years. Actually, while the principle is correct (and certainly supported by the literature to which you refer), I don't think the "daily versus two years" inference is quite right (or supported by the literature). The problem with relatively long-ish terms is that people who feel like they have signed up for them tend to want to "keep the commitment" and tough it out, even after burnout has clearly set in. For examples of that, we need look no further than a succession of ADs who have served extremely well for a term or two, then burned out six months or a year into an additional term but continued to serve (and to get harder and harder to work with) for the full two-year period. If you had said something that amounted to "review every six months", I'd agree. But, in terms of burnout risk, two years is a long enough cycle to cause a problem different from the one you are trying to prevent but no less of a risk. john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D1C28C0D9 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:13:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXchc34Wdj7c for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99AE83A67CC for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2MLEi3U001209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:14:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4D891142.3030209@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:14:42 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cridland References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> <6266.1300828148.094389@puncture> In-Reply-To: <6266.1300828148.094389@puncture> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Apps Area Review List Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:13:19 -0000 On 3/22/2011 2:09 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Finally, a formal term may well help reduce burn-out - instead of "Can I do this > position for another day?", the question becomes "Can I do this position for > another term?" which is a lot easier to consider. This is a deceptively important point. As I recall, there's all sorts of 'psychology of decision making' research to back it up.' For those who know the reference to the frog in water that is gradually heated, this is a bit like that. Making a decision to continue on a daily basis makes it more likely that there will be burnout than having to make it once every 2 years. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55333A676A for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:07:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CUmqDFCUzqLX for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CD03A67CC for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A975116808F; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:09:12 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EjKvL5w+tNqa; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:09:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1A7D21168067; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:09:08 +0000 (GMT) References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <6266.1300828148.094389@puncture> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:09:08 +0000 From: Dave Cridland To: SM , Apps Area Review List Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:07:42 -0000 On Tue Mar 22 19:01:03 2011, SM wrote: > Hi Dave, > At 08:44 22-03-2011, Dave Cridland wrote: >> A term gives the option to step down - or be asked to step down - >> with much less fuss. > > I avoided the word "term" as I view the selection as informal. Right, and for you that's a good thing. As Dave Crocker points out, you're doing a sufficiently good job that you're distorting our perception of it. In addition, you're your own boss, which means you don't have to justify the time to anyone else, and nobody else is trying to do resource planning around you. > The conversation might go like this: Or it might go: Candidate: Boss, I've been asked to continue my APPs are tech review team lead position for another term of two years. Boss: Okay. Making a formal term sounds distastefully formal, I know, but it has the effect of being able to be presented to management . Other conversation become easier, too: AD: I'd like someone else to have a term of doing this, if that's okay? Team Lead: OK, I'll step down at the end of the term. Finally, a formal term may well help reduce burn-out - instead of "Can I do this position for another day?", the question becomes "Can I do this position for another term?" which is a lot easier to consider. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D425228C166 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:57:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XE5JX0Xu24fI for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D748F3A6842 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2MJwZer031653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:58:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4D88FF69.10006@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:58:33 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:57:11 -0000 > I'll answer the question before it gets asked; I don't feel burnt out yet. I may > be the last person to see the signs. If anyone ever notices that, please do tell > me. I don't have any issue with Pete. There couldn't be a better time to open > this discussion as there aren't any elements that might cause a fuss. And as long as we are dotting the i's and crossing the t's of delicacy and to o make sure there is no confusion from my side: None of this is about you or your performance. It's a design discussion purely. As much as you all know that I hate to offer criticisms, I'm sure that were you doing something onerous I, or some other apps wallflower, would overcome our hesitance to comment on it. If anything, as I implied in my previous note, you've distorted the discussion by having done such a /good/ job. Makes it more difficult to juggle the possibility of the alternative... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C298128C179 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:00:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id itYz-Or4KgTX for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228EC28C1ED for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.255]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2MJ1PxZ023475; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:01:31 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300820493; bh=DiivkcCXEaLVAW4UY5dk3gMBxGw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=jTKoG+JKIc32bgqkLWnBLppZE53fcVVu/VjeSkB2cULoLKqE4xfVbc4NiE3ArWbn5 +6sa9djR5PBEd/k5S+usRp4YxY60QneAoyY0VG2iacvtvIyPMRWTY2XPFnCPme14RV 6J2KZb3Z98H/BUM5K8KT3d2X33gNKH2nSuEGcRB4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110322110356.0d72fc08@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:01:03 -0700 To: Dave Cridland From: SM In-Reply-To: <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:00:19 -0000 Hi Dave, At 08:44 22-03-2011, Dave Cridland wrote: >A term gives the option to step down - or be asked to step down - >with much less fuss. I avoided the word "term" as I view the selection as informal. The conversation might go like this: AD: Would you like to be team lead? Your predecessors did the work for period X. Candidate: What's the pay like? AD: Twice as much what we pay the reviewers. Candidate: Where do I sign up? I'll answer the question before it gets asked; I don't feel burnt out yet. I may be the last person to see the signs. If anyone ever notices that, please do tell me. I don't have any issue with Pete. There couldn't be a better time to open this discussion as there aren't any elements that might cause a fuss. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053E328C0E3 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:18:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2QPEnIIbEYwa for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5355E28C0D6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:19:49 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Alexey Melnikov , Eric Burger Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:19:48 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team Thread-Index: AcvoplRbifcd3KbeQOWkfTSEE3pX2gADvpuQ Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:18:17 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:32 AM > To: Eric Burger > Cc: apps-review@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review= Team >=20 > Do we really need to decide on a specific term length? > I would rather the Team Lead resign when she/he feels burnt out, or Apps > ADs ask the person to step down. +1. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AB428C12E for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:14:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0oqSMGThQ11 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949DD28C0E5 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2MHGE96026960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:16:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4D88D95C.2050505@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:16:12 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:14:47 -0000 On 3/22/2011 8:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Do we really need to decide on a specific term length? > I would rather the Team Lead resign when she/he feels burnt out, or Apps ADs ask > the person to step down. One of the problems with having a task performed well in its early stages is that we tend to model this as projecting forward forever. Waiting for someone to burn out is not a great management policy. The model also makes it more difficult if there is a problem with the person doing the job. Having standardized periods for doing a task makes it easier for everyone to do planning, such as for the designated person to get approval from their management, and makes it more comfortable to replacement them if their is a problem. In addition, the rather nice view that this activity can help as a stepping-stone for training new folk to take on IETF management positions encourage regular turnover. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3452C28C0D6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IzNoDrHZkNLA for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673833A6864 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q23oh-0001Po-IC; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:48:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:48:18 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Alexey Melnikov , Eric Burger Message-ID: <5B7D1FDCE1F3352D668006CC@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:46:49 -0000 --On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 15:31 +0000 Alexey Melnikov wrote: >... > Do we really need to decide on a specific term length? > I would rather the Team Lead resign when she/he feels burnt > out, or Apps ADs ask the person to step down. +1. I think it is perfectly reasonable for prior team leads to say to an incoming one "you may notice signs of burnout in a year or two; if you do, quit before they get severe". But let's not spend energy making, and then trying to enforce/ interpret, specific rules. john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF8428C127 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:43:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1+Gg9dmrpPSH for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668A228C0D6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CC3116808D; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:45:01 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2KU1jCAyVN98; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:44:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5131A1168067; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:44:56 +0000 (GMT) References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <6266.1300808696.317839@puncture> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:44:56 +0000 From: Dave Cridland To: Alexey Melnikov , Apps Area Review List , Eric Burger Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:42 -0000 On Tue Mar 22 15:31:33 2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Do we really need to decide on a specific term length? > I would rather the Team Lead resign when she/he feels burnt out, or > Apps ADs ask the person to step down. A term gives the option to step down - or be asked to step down - with much less fuss. I don't think there's a requirement to mandate a maximum, either - if someone's happy to continue for another term and the AD is willing to let them, then that's fine. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4957F28C12E for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iC5N6kWNxcbR for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EE228C0D6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.124] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:32:14 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D88C0D5.1030606@isode.com> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:31:33 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Eric Burger References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> In-Reply-To: <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:30:43 -0000 Eric Burger wrote: >As a former, inaugural director of the apps review team, SM & I are 10000% in agreement here. What we are saying is this is a very tough job that after a while you just get burned out. It is an EXCELLENT venue for leadership development - you get to look at the whole area, interact with the grey beards and bald heads, and it has a decent amount of visibility that would not go unnoticed by nomcom. However, it is very stressful. I was not nearly as conscientious as SM, and thus the times for reviews varied from 1 day to 12 weeks. The outliers required multiple prodding and even multiple reviewers to get done. > >I would offer that 2 years is a good *target* for the position, possibly call it 2.5years to guarantee overlap with three AD administrations. > Do we really need to decide on a specific term length? I would rather the Team Lead resign when she/he feels burnt out, or Apps ADs ask the person to step down. >On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:10 PM, SM wrote: > > >>At 11:02 21-03-2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >> >>>SM, I would like to know why you think that. >>> >>> >>There is the continuity of the team and continuity within the IETF. John explained how the position can be useful for leadership development. Continuity is also about changing people with the work still getting done. Such changes can be difficult when the person you are replacing has been in that role for a long time. >> Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC6D28C0D0 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:04:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FdIPedzijIgH for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.249.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B066C28C0EC for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:04:22 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer; b=tL05vGTO/u9pwTkxUwZdq6XVvAZYJxdrHy2WnoLaN87ADya22deT3bYO5yiDetpWIKDx2pUxWJJBGL7/81ZVPWXWJ49BSq4RpdKDqGHn/NH+kecutQUgyS+1GQ2XiC5q; Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.134]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q229D-0005AT-1u for apps-review@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:01:23 -0700 From: Eric Burger Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-21-373005455; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:05:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> To: apps-review@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> Message-Id: <5AF51E51-0E2C-4E48-AA81-AAC78CDAFDF3@standardstrack.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:04:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail-21-373005455 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As a former, inaugural director of the apps review team, SM & I are = 10000% in agreement here. What we are saying is this is a very tough job = that after a while you just get burned out. It is an EXCELLENT venue for = leadership development - you get to look at the whole area, interact = with the grey beards and bald heads, and it has a decent amount of = visibility that would not go unnoticed by nomcom. However, it is very = stressful. I was not nearly as conscientious as SM, and thus the times = for reviews varied from 1 day to 12 weeks. The outliers required = multiple prodding and even multiple reviewers to get done. I would offer that 2 years is a good *target* for the position, possibly = call it 2.5years to guarantee overlap with three AD administrations. On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:10 PM, SM wrote: > At 11:02 21-03-2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> SM, I would like to know why you think that. >=20 > There is the continuity of the team and continuity within the IETF. = John explained how the position can be useful for leadership = development. Continuity is also about changing people with the work = still getting done. Such changes can be difficult when the person you = are replacing has been in that role for a long time. --Apple-Mail-21-373005455 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILHzCCBN0w ggPFoAMCAQICEHGS++YZX6xNEoV0cTSiGKcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwezELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgMEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBwwHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UECgwR Q29tb2RvIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxITAfBgNVBAMMGEFBQSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTZXJ2aWNlczAeFw0w NDAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yODEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQx FzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsx ITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJz dC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVNNRm5pELlzkniii8efNIx B8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQylbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8 om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXqvgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHG TPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7Nl yP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4IBJzCCASMwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUoBEKIz6W8Qfs4q8p74Klf9AwpLQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59 MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggr BgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwewYDVR0fBHQwcjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC5j b21vZG9jYS5jb20vQUFBQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVTZXJ2aWNlcy5jcmwwNqA0oDKGMGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu Y29tb2RvLm5ldC9BQUFDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZVNlcnZpY2VzLmNybDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAJ2Vyzy4fqUJxB6/C8LHdo45PJTGEKpPDMngq4RdiVTgZTvzbRx8 NywlVF+WIfw3hJGdFdwUT4HPVB1rbEVgxy35l1FM+WbKPKCCjKbI8OLp1Er57D9Wyd12jMOCAU9s APMeGmF0BEcDqcZAV5G8ZSLFJ2dPV9tkWtmNH7qGL/QGrpxp7en0zykX2OBKnxogL5dMUbtGB8SK N04g4wkxaMeexIud6H4RvDJoEJYRmETYKlFgTYjrdDrfQwYyyDlWjDoRUtNBpEMD9O3vMyfbOeAU TibJ2PU54om4k123KSZB6rObroP8d3XK6Mq1/uJlSmM+RMTQw16Hc6mYHK9/FX8wggY6MIIFIqAD AgECAhEAxcM7lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJ BgNVBAgTAlVUMRcwFQYDVQQHEw5TYWx0IExha2UgQ2l0eTEeMBwGA1UEChMVVGhlIFVTRVJUUlVT VCBOZXR3b3JrMSEwHwYDVQQLExhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20xNjA0BgNVBAMTLVVU Ti1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBFbWFpbDAeFw0xMDA5MDgwMDAw MDBaFw0xMTA5MDgyMzU5NTlaMIHhMTUwMwYDVQQLEyxDb21vZG8gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yayAtIFBF UlNPTkEgTk9UIFZBTElEQVRFRDFGMEQGA1UECxM9VGVybXMgYW5kIENvbmRpdGlvbnMgb2YgdXNl OiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNvbW9kby5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeTEfMB0GA1UECxMWKGMpMjAwMyBDb21v ZG8gTGltaXRlZDEUMBIGA1UEAxMLRXJpYyBCdXJnZXIxKTAnBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWGmVidXJnZXJA c3RhbmRhcmRzdHJhY2suY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAqeauFkEq 5Pj7AIAaDRbUWIpoblTKyrjcSfXRaHvjk0jWBTsBPe6oOZjudMK0Vo9A1Sl52BixDgf1/qb2Z+PT 7M0mqSOOsSucEBid48IMvGi79xmKKAVf5jiyFNNAaTZWn76dwNLMkKd/+Ki0fn8kEbb2zG+gGKyZ MNHiNX+GQfPpHyzo2MTwnb16lXMfGJrGv4uLZS/pY9PENdFQnwV0ASZoqX+ArtLY2xeuC+rYG9xQ Cz7qiLbJhCJzWsEGETyHLDjE5bN4HB9DsJKtGFLQuOdTanwGigNz9cVH9pLFNQxiotavAouXgqS4 wGvcq4mGP9w9zTychoUqIKsEg9OD1wIDAQABo4ICHDCCAhgwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUiYJnfcSdJnAA S7RQSHzePa4Ebn0wHQYDVR0OBBYEFAlgEOVj6Hl0La8sPRP388HEMiWvMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMCAGA1UdJQQZMBcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBgsrBgEEAbIxAQMFAjARBglghkgB hvhCAQEEBAMCBSAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgwrBgEEAbIxAQIBAQEwKzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0 cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9DUFMwgaUGA1UdHwSBnTCBmjBMoEqgSIZGaHR0cDovL2Ny bC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZEVtYWls LmNybDBKoEigRoZEaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG8ubmV0L1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0 aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwbAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEYDBeMDYGCCsGAQUFBzAChipodHRw Oi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9VVE5BQUFDbGllbnRDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6 Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAlBgNVHREEHjAcgRplYnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNv bTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEACRTppSEc5DMYn8YXcbfX36iTaNBGw1gUvTNam0U8pXH0E7H3 2d4cTq6DEMu5ifEvxMGBqhUyv0sKxQ7+UvtDwrk7Kiy2L6TUC4zNEklZbtDqY7+Wd7EQZkN4k/zx kMLlz2VIIRL/Cg48NrBKP5bo1la78NTJx8m4+VForLseEBabxMQoWB/GOVC7WpO/+RCgd93gz6H/ RzW1hnK0Uvu5H3Kz7HEC3R1Qk/sE9nXVzTfoJOMJRnyMS5Ut61mgoWSm/kUtczAlRRYh6IBOhzAl awoXz+yk9hMCheYRAWx0EamBBpSzvqXj0N2vXYc62v3e3ddcLZncjiB0pYIfCE3s4DGCA/8wggP7 AgEBMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBD aXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu dXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRp b24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAxcM7lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICDzAYBgkqhkiG9w0B CQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMTAzMjIxNDA1NTJaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BDEWBBRfmr0PuzxHJylmbK4RLEmmNnIgcTCB1QYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHHMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUg VVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQG A1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAxcM7 lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjCB1wYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgceggcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYD VQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1Qg TmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4t VVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQDFwzuU3TOCsDvWZ+r6 wbrGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBADJSQZ128MZXJaozN5xhV+HMq/JpaSSd6pu3tmOup+eR6eaw WQZNIiJ2DEToQEVwy3+0xMJMupCQbrIaPkCRGmSZxbZfgTkcY1IPnNGVpjdrV+IsVuUkdrHIShRp sQf46vVyTg1hTaQj3ser+BC1NUfUrHr5jv1v5C+hU/rCRDK9Ug652mLc1eANAh8HbboouI0uCWmt hcLl7LDM9Ybln4ikMz3ZKEOlB7MRKZ7s33ghA1eKbwCz6++1ETgQOCTKsmV3F8jqeM4t2o2LSMeR WavESoKmvlZGyuC4PKBtKXx9AjgrATIQU4gZGTASSIYcfhyNhMt7PS2bI74JlN5rXlAAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-21-373005455-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA91D3A68D5 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.902, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlzd6gZAFZI3 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B283A6884 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:20:45 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: SM , "apps-review@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:20:44 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team Thread-Index: AcvoDMF0oc5SJ0X3QlqfCM7fxIg4gAAANI6w Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:19:13 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of SM > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:11 PM > To: John C Klensin; Alexey Melnikov; apps-review@ietf.org > Cc: Pete Resnick > Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review= Team >=20 > >SM, I would like to know why you think that. >=20 > There is the continuity of the team and continuity within the > IETF. John explained how the position can be useful for leadership > development. Continuity is also about changing people with the work > still getting done. Such changes can be difficult when the person > you are replacing has been in that role for a long time. Breadth and depth are often mutually exclusive. And since ADs have specified terms of office, having an Apps Review Team an= d APPSAREA co-chairs that persist can only be beneficial. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0DE28C176 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:11:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNInzMps1Viq for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420B03A68CB for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2LLCeh6020693; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:12:46 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300741969; bh=dS8Ny3MWJxNRpl946K/GJjxZlBw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=1yUHyGs3GkZ07ut41ocgS1Q+5RaJf1NNnU0S5YKhHnprTzgrL+5us9oSXS/wOtouS JUi9TREqP+QPEe15wh/wTJ9214ffUiFouS0qq7K1G7RRfVcPi1HHcaZtg42cQICAxQ BgSDAgjJtazl8bc3ovX/49wv7irBgfMJSxowX+lc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110321111536.0ce71198@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:10:47 -0700 To: John C Klensin , Alexey Melnikov , apps-review@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:11:22 -0000 Hi John, Alexey, At 15:09 20-03-2011, John C Klensin wrote: >One comment on that question: one of the things the IETF does >much less well than it should is to arrange things that >familiarize new people with how the system works and generally >to do leadership development. While one might gain something in >efficiency by having a team lead who was a former AD, it would >be _far_ better, IMO, to use the position as an opportunity for >increased understanding of the community, actors, and dynamics >(as I am sure it has been for you). As long as things are As a general comment, I agree that the IETF does much less well that it comes to leadership development. I am not going to take a stance on which option is better. I would like the team to discuss the matter and decide on which option it prefers. I have a better understanding than before of the community actors and the dynamics as Peter and Alexey have been very helpful. I am sure I can learn something from Pete too. However, what is good for me is not necessarily good for the IETF. >fairly open, there will always be present and ex-ADs ready to >step in and provide that sort of guidance, perhaps even when the >team lead doesn't want it :-). But let's not throw away the >opportunity to read more people in on the system in order to >gain small marginal efficiencies by reusing the same folks over >and over again. I am glad to see the ex-ADs on this mailing list stepping in to provide guidance. In pure IETF style, people do not wait to be asked before giving their opinion. :-) It was good to have people actually disagreeing with me on the implicit ACK. At 11:02 21-03-2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >SM, I would like to know why you think that. There is the continuity of the team and continuity within the IETF. John explained how the position can be useful for leadership development. Continuity is also about changing people with the work still getting done. Such changes can be difficult when the person you are replacing has been in that role for a long time. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7F028C17C for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:58:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.971, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id re5dauHcIQR1 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BD43A68CB for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:00:00 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Pete Resnick , SM Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:59 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) Thread-Index: Acvmiua0snCxms+8RE+h3jvIfylVHgBf8SNQ Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:58:28 -0000 Howdy Pete, > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Pete Resnick > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:30 PM > To: SM > Cc: apps-review@ietf.org > Subject: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for = Applications Area Review Team) > > [...] > So the questions for the team: >=20 > 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? Yes. > 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it > reasonable to ask people to look at one document per week for this kind > of quick review? At the level of detail you're talking about, weekly seems like an OK reques= t to me. -MSK=20 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5430C3A68C6 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.624 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kU7OYA5Wg+4b for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DB43A68C2 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:57:04 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "apps-review@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:57:03 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team Thread-Index: Acvn8kZDHm+/1zT/SFm4VE8i5KuyRAAFzCjQ Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <4D8792AE.9070208@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D8792AE.9070208@isode.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:55:32 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:02 AM > To: John C Klensin; SM > Cc: Pete Resnick; apps-review@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review= Team >=20 > >>One suggested change that has not be discussed is the Team > >>Lead. The Team Lead should have a good relationship with the > >>Apps Area ADs as he or she works under their direction. > >>Keeping a Team Lead for too long does not ensure continuity. >=20 > SM, I would like to know why you think that. > I don't think there is a need for changing the Team Lead every year. I concur. Continuity across AD terms is a good thing. And one other point to mention: Although we say explicitly that any of the = SecDir, DNSDIR, GenArt, etc. reviews have no more weight than any other LC = comments, I think it's also fair to say that this may not be the case in pr= actice. Most or all of the DISCUSSes I have had to handle in the past that= didn't originate with the ADs themselves came from these reviews. We may = say they carry equal weight, but I for one don't buy it. But I also don't = have a problem with that; the people on these lists are experts in their fi= elds and experienced IETF people, and their reviews are essentially solicit= ed (indirectly) by ADs. I think it's quite reasonable for reviewer comment= s to bend an AD's ear a little more than usual. I don't know if we can/should say so in the review templates, but it does s= eem odd to me every time I read it. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756213A688F for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.155 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8UOL7xAYFFi for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46093A6889 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:46:33 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Kurt Zeilenga , SM Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:46:31 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team Thread-Index: AcvmOm1XG/CUl8BSTreDH13wbV8WgwBzpOAg Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM> In-Reply-To: <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Pete Resnick , "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:45:01 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Kurt Zeilenga > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 6:35 AM > To: SM > Cc: Pete Resnick; apps-review@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review= Team >=20 > On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:50 AM, SM wrote: >=20 > > If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, > it is assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review > before the deadline. >=20 > I think this is a poor assumption to make. The reviewer might have > dropped off the face of the Internet for a few days, or might even be > dead. >=20 > I suggest instead that after 24 hours without a response, the team lead > either reassign (such as when time for the review is short) or give the > assigned reviewer another 24 hours to respond. After 48 hours of now > response, always reassign. >=20 > I also would not count hours of weekend and days of the reviewer's > national holidays against those hours. +1 to all points. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7B928C19B for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:01:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uY-a-Cmkb6TI for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3AF28C194 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.124] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:03:20 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D8792AE.9070208@isode.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:02:22 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: John C Klensin , SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> In-Reply-To: <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:01:49 -0000 John C Klensin wrote: >--On Sunday, March 20, 2011 13:08 -0700 SM > wrote: > > > >>One suggested change that has not be discussed is the Team >>Lead. The Team Lead should have a good relationship with the >>Apps Area ADs as he or she works under their direction. >>Keeping a Team Lead for too long does not ensure continuity. >> >> SM, I would like to know why you think that. I don't think there is a need for changing the Team Lead every year. >>I would like the team to discuss with the Apps Area ADs when >>they meet in person about: >> >> (i) Should the Team Lead be selected for a year only >> No, unless this is what the Team Lead candidate wants. >> (ii) Should the Team Lead have IESG experience to provide >>better guidance to reviewers >> I don't think so. >One comment on that question: one of the things the IETF does >much less well than it should is to arrange things that >familiarize new people with how the system works and generally >to do leadership development. While one might gain something in >efficiency by having a team lead who was a former AD, it would >be _far_ better, IMO, to use the position as an opportunity for >increased understanding of the community, actors, and dynamics >(as I am sure it has been for you). As long as things are >fairly open, there will always be present and ex-ADs ready to >step in and provide that sort of guidance, perhaps even when the >team lead doesn't want it :-). But let's not throw away the >opportunity to read more people in on the system in order to >gain small marginal efficiencies by reusing the same folks over >and over again. > +100. > > > Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4FC28C0FD for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:05:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lat4j1qUgQjI for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.249.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8653A69CD for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:04:59 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer; b=xW6tK+OgX7yuXI/fInWZMkpNq4LXPyOZh/Irohv7SnQDybdOlj75reslN08LCFtVWFdT8MUk0NL+e73DUQtn8SGoyRaJh9ckxHIs9IiWPQ8MWy8EXSQp2b0va/LFUR0D; Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.134]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1Rda-0007kT-Tm for apps-review@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:02:19 -0700 From: Eric Burger Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-23-232641008; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:06:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> To: apps-review@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:05:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail-23-232641008 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +1,000 On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:09 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, March 20, 2011 13:08 -0700 SM > wrote: > >> One suggested change that has not be discussed is the Team >> Lead. The Team Lead should have a good relationship with the >> Apps Area ADs as he or she works under their direction. >> Keeping a Team Lead for too long does not ensure continuity. >> I would like the team to discuss with the Apps Area ADs when >> they meet in person about: >> >> (i) Should the Team Lead be selected for a year only >> >> (ii) Should the Team Lead have IESG experience to provide >> better guidance to reviewers > > One comment on that question: one of the things the IETF does > much less well than it should is to arrange things that > familiarize new people with how the system works and generally > to do leadership development. While one might gain something in > efficiency by having a team lead who was a former AD, it would > be _far_ better, IMO, to use the position as an opportunity for > increased understanding of the community, actors, and dynamics > (as I am sure it has been for you). As long as things are > fairly open, there will always be present and ex-ADs ready to > step in and provide that sort of guidance, perhaps even when the > team lead doesn't want it :-). But let's not throw away the > opportunity to read more people in on the system in order to > gain small marginal efficiencies by reusing the same folks over > and over again. > > john > > _______________________________________________ > apps-review mailing list > apps-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review --Apple-Mail-23-232641008 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILHzCCBN0w ggPFoAMCAQICEHGS++YZX6xNEoV0cTSiGKcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwezELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgMEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBwwHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UECgwR Q29tb2RvIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxITAfBgNVBAMMGEFBQSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTZXJ2aWNlczAeFw0w NDAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yODEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQx FzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsx ITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJz dC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVNNRm5pELlzkniii8efNIx B8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQylbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8 om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXqvgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHG TPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7Nl yP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4IBJzCCASMwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUoBEKIz6W8Qfs4q8p74Klf9AwpLQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59 MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggr BgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwewYDVR0fBHQwcjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC5j b21vZG9jYS5jb20vQUFBQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVTZXJ2aWNlcy5jcmwwNqA0oDKGMGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu Y29tb2RvLm5ldC9BQUFDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZVNlcnZpY2VzLmNybDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAJ2Vyzy4fqUJxB6/C8LHdo45PJTGEKpPDMngq4RdiVTgZTvzbRx8 NywlVF+WIfw3hJGdFdwUT4HPVB1rbEVgxy35l1FM+WbKPKCCjKbI8OLp1Er57D9Wyd12jMOCAU9s APMeGmF0BEcDqcZAV5G8ZSLFJ2dPV9tkWtmNH7qGL/QGrpxp7en0zykX2OBKnxogL5dMUbtGB8SK N04g4wkxaMeexIud6H4RvDJoEJYRmETYKlFgTYjrdDrfQwYyyDlWjDoRUtNBpEMD9O3vMyfbOeAU TibJ2PU54om4k123KSZB6rObroP8d3XK6Mq1/uJlSmM+RMTQw16Hc6mYHK9/FX8wggY6MIIFIqAD AgECAhEAxcM7lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJ BgNVBAgTAlVUMRcwFQYDVQQHEw5TYWx0IExha2UgQ2l0eTEeMBwGA1UEChMVVGhlIFVTRVJUUlVT VCBOZXR3b3JrMSEwHwYDVQQLExhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20xNjA0BgNVBAMTLVVU Ti1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBFbWFpbDAeFw0xMDA5MDgwMDAw MDBaFw0xMTA5MDgyMzU5NTlaMIHhMTUwMwYDVQQLEyxDb21vZG8gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yayAtIFBF UlNPTkEgTk9UIFZBTElEQVRFRDFGMEQGA1UECxM9VGVybXMgYW5kIENvbmRpdGlvbnMgb2YgdXNl OiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNvbW9kby5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeTEfMB0GA1UECxMWKGMpMjAwMyBDb21v ZG8gTGltaXRlZDEUMBIGA1UEAxMLRXJpYyBCdXJnZXIxKTAnBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWGmVidXJnZXJA c3RhbmRhcmRzdHJhY2suY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAqeauFkEq 5Pj7AIAaDRbUWIpoblTKyrjcSfXRaHvjk0jWBTsBPe6oOZjudMK0Vo9A1Sl52BixDgf1/qb2Z+PT 7M0mqSOOsSucEBid48IMvGi79xmKKAVf5jiyFNNAaTZWn76dwNLMkKd/+Ki0fn8kEbb2zG+gGKyZ MNHiNX+GQfPpHyzo2MTwnb16lXMfGJrGv4uLZS/pY9PENdFQnwV0ASZoqX+ArtLY2xeuC+rYG9xQ Cz7qiLbJhCJzWsEGETyHLDjE5bN4HB9DsJKtGFLQuOdTanwGigNz9cVH9pLFNQxiotavAouXgqS4 wGvcq4mGP9w9zTychoUqIKsEg9OD1wIDAQABo4ICHDCCAhgwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUiYJnfcSdJnAA S7RQSHzePa4Ebn0wHQYDVR0OBBYEFAlgEOVj6Hl0La8sPRP388HEMiWvMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMCAGA1UdJQQZMBcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBgsrBgEEAbIxAQMFAjARBglghkgB hvhCAQEEBAMCBSAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgwrBgEEAbIxAQIBAQEwKzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0 cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9DUFMwgaUGA1UdHwSBnTCBmjBMoEqgSIZGaHR0cDovL2Ny bC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZEVtYWls LmNybDBKoEigRoZEaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG8ubmV0L1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0 aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwbAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEYDBeMDYGCCsGAQUFBzAChipodHRw Oi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9VVE5BQUFDbGllbnRDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6 Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAlBgNVHREEHjAcgRplYnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNv bTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEACRTppSEc5DMYn8YXcbfX36iTaNBGw1gUvTNam0U8pXH0E7H3 2d4cTq6DEMu5ifEvxMGBqhUyv0sKxQ7+UvtDwrk7Kiy2L6TUC4zNEklZbtDqY7+Wd7EQZkN4k/zx kMLlz2VIIRL/Cg48NrBKP5bo1la78NTJx8m4+VForLseEBabxMQoWB/GOVC7WpO/+RCgd93gz6H/ RzW1hnK0Uvu5H3Kz7HEC3R1Qk/sE9nXVzTfoJOMJRnyMS5Ut61mgoWSm/kUtczAlRRYh6IBOhzAl awoXz+yk9hMCheYRAWx0EamBBpSzvqXj0N2vXYc62v3e3ddcLZncjiB0pYIfCE3s4DGCA/8wggP7 AgEBMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBD aXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu dXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRp b24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAxcM7lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICDzAYBgkqhkiG9w0B CQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMTAzMjAyMzA2MjhaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BDEWBBR+u0pKKQa75/+s9W/Lh4C+xJcQ8zCB1QYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHHMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUg VVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQG A1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAxcM7 lN0zgrA71mfq+sG6xjCB1wYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgceggcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYD VQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1Qg TmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4t VVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQDFwzuU3TOCsDvWZ+r6 wbrGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAEk/0hGWOdp4iSP8OrS+fUIWFk5HhuVqLqnJDiKVvb4lmYoJ PRReudp26+cXLEWfocZknhNH5Wnb6qtESxX1cRxABeDCdhEqKtDosEQ3MbGKI2SklYHpxM5aveAR GSxVm0acRkQgemw8nDLQTHFKoUOO1F/clntercIwyJKor5+We2Ocue06uqRBPPMwjR8GKOd82b5p Ad0EMq2l/7c4IAYZuuOeJIB1T1e58JaHQ9nO0mAhZo2pZAbC9FlCAqCGupnPH0uUZMtBXv5a/efy wRgQPDr43EfTQadhAKMoPrC8N5hueBKKBmrTwSNFpFsi/+OC0cuWmgShwjM2wzig4OMAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-23-232641008-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02683A6BEE for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.634 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXRwZXmsPm-t for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063D33A6BED for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q1Qof-000KlM-Ek; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:09:41 -0400 X-Vipre-Scanned: 049D83B600223D049D8503-TDI Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:09:40 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: SM , Alexey Melnikov Message-ID: <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:08:21 -0000 --On Sunday, March 20, 2011 13:08 -0700 SM wrote: > One suggested change that has not be discussed is the Team > Lead. The Team Lead should have a good relationship with the > Apps Area ADs as he or she works under their direction. > Keeping a Team Lead for too long does not ensure continuity. > I would like the team to discuss with the Apps Area ADs when > they meet in person about: > > (i) Should the Team Lead be selected for a year only > > (ii) Should the Team Lead have IESG experience to provide > better guidance to reviewers One comment on that question: one of the things the IETF does much less well than it should is to arrange things that familiarize new people with how the system works and generally to do leadership development. While one might gain something in efficiency by having a team lead who was a former AD, it would be _far_ better, IMO, to use the position as an opportunity for increased understanding of the community, actors, and dynamics (as I am sure it has been for you). As long as things are fairly open, there will always be present and ex-ADs ready to step in and provide that sort of guidance, perhaps even when the team lead doesn't want it :-). But let's not throw away the opportunity to read more people in on the system in order to gain small marginal efficiencies by reusing the same folks over and over again. john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C203A6BE3 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7kTNLgYDzga4 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2073A6BE2 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KLN8r5007945; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:23:17 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300656199; bh=dhLFKmd0+sabuGmhQeJZDHRbbJs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=CmzPOKxNkWW2AVDHVJAkb+CZZT2wI474rHym4+DxwB2EsfKAqTQqpBgMhzyJvy9t4 WVJBSjt10rDUZPLu7OzuxHh3k7mEDZtmhnC+xIzAbmBnYprqY4wiYcEJqlF3uTYewb FMj4yqTaC0U6ShRZ9cwjkuOeHiKcYC/5HlVUzSWI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110320131107.0c1623e8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:22:31 -0700 To: Pete Resnick From: SM In-Reply-To: <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:21:51 -0000 Hi Pete, At 08:11 20-03-2011, Pete Resnick wrote: >Even if you were assigned one per month, what would be the amount of >time you would want from "pickup out of the queue" until "completion >of review"? What I worry about is the same thing SM is trying to >address with the initial proposed changes: I don't want to wait for >a month to find out that someone is *not* going to be able to >complete a review and then we have to restart the month timer in the >queue, especially for what I'm hoping is an early cursory review. Is >one week enough time to complete a review of this sort, even if you >are only asked to do one per month? The general agreement was one week for reviews going for IESG evaluation and two weeks for other reviews. Here's when some reviews were assigned and when they were submitted: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd 2010-12-02 2010-12-03 draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control 2010-12-02 2010-12-15 draft-bryan-metalinkhttp 2011-01-22 2011-02-28 draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-06 2011-02-01 2011-02-04 draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06 2011-02-01 2011-02-07 draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07 2011-02-01 2011-02-07 Some reviewers take a week or less. As some documents are be quite lengthy, the review takes more time. There are also other factors to take into account, such as how familiar the reviewer is with the subject matter, to determine how long a review may take. Although I mentioned it several times, team members do not generally ask to be put on leave. I didn't do that last November and it caused some delays in posting the assignments. It is easier for me to plan the work if I know about the availability of reviewers. I suggest that we do a few cursory reviews so that the team gets a better idea of how it works and how much work it entails. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03DC3A6BE2 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QU+tqm0gR0wz for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1BB3A6BDF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KLN8r3007945; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:23:14 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300656196; bh=TJ/uERjEXu/cupGb/yEUFg2QseQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=dtaj5dJtYm8v3hfhePT1CsxNob9D+m9z4sAqzHEgpUf3jtB33ZVzOrpJDQ1XRFp4+ HrUfK7kawNvcEuwIudhf6Zb0LcEIalf9bDZUsGmWHLDDxHuB7Nv8NzHdyILWVVcVnF fvHZNjLTD4/onW/dN+KeYq0QOqQ0XUqi0uscEfdU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:08:53 -0700 To: Alexey Melnikov From: SM In-Reply-To: <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:21:51 -0000 Hi Alexey, As you are the outgoing Apps Area AD, I can now defriend you. :-) The new Apps Area AD will be Pete Resnick. I would like to thank you for your support and advice since I took over. You have been extremely responsive. The output of the Applications Area Review Team is a reflection of the work of Peter, you and the reviewers. I enjoyed working with you. You gave honest answers instead of the politically correct line. At 08:09 20-03-2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >GenArt and SecDir ask reviewers to confirm that their issues were >addressed and/or appropriately discussed before documents are put on >IESG telechat. Maybe we should do the same. That's a good idea. >I also want to remind everybody that Apps Review Team reviews are >treated as IETF LC comments and have no more weight then them. >Sponsoring ADs should take them into considerations, but they might >disagree with certain conclusions made by reviewers (e.g. which >issues are major, which are minor, which are blocking, etc.). Yes. One suggested change that has not be discussed is the Team Lead. The Team Lead should have a good relationship with the Apps Area ADs as he or she works under their direction. Keeping a Team Lead for too long does not ensure continuity. I would like the team to discuss with the Apps Area ADs when they meet in person about: (i) Should the Team Lead be selected for a year only (ii) Should the Team Lead have IESG experience to provide better guidance to reviewers Unless there are objections, I will be updating the Applications Area Review Team web page to include the email address of the team members. I will also be sending out individual emails on a yearly basis to enquire about whether the team member can still take on the commitment to perform Apps Area reviews. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C3128C0F0 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:34:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 532zn5+Ig2i4 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA7C28C0D9 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KFZbQ5019271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:35:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4D861EC5.5050606@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:35:33 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:34:12 -0000 On 3/20/2011 8:09 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > GenArt and SecDir ask reviewers to confirm that their issues were addressed > and/or appropriately discussed before documents are put on IESG telechat. Maybe > we should do the same. I believe the underlying obligation is for authors to be diligent in processing the issues raised in reviews. Having reviewers confirm that authors were in fact diligent is useful but should be secondary, IMO. I'm one of those who believe that authors are not obligated to respond to every posting by anyone with a stray comment. In fact, I think it is better for authors to wait until other participants have developed a comment thread. This demonstrates some community consensus and it saves massive amounts of author time and energy. However a formally commissioned review is different. It has a degree of IETF sanctioning that ought to elevate the review, to ensure that authors attend careful to /all/ of its contents. This does not, of course, mean that authors must do what the review says, merely that they must respond meaningful to what the review says. Again, I believe this is not specific to AppsArea but should be IETF-wide and that the IESG should attempt to confirm that all commissioned reviews have been responded and, where reasonable, resolved. (On the other hand, ADs have sometimes been rather mechanical about invoking a Discuss until a reviewer is satisfied with an author's response and I certainly do not want to encourage that.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB71328C0CF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3w-Lu+xyLezH for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253D33A6AAB for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:19:44 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D861AE1.1000402@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:18:57 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Pete Resnick References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> <4D861A89.8070404@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D861A89.8070404@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:18:15 -0000 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Pete Resnick wrote: [...] >> said exactly the same thing. Followup question: > >> Even if you were assigned one per month, what would be the amount of >> time you would want from "pickup out of the queue" until "completion >> of review"? What I worry about is the same thing SM is trying to >> address with the initial proposed changes: I don't want to wait for a >> month to find out that someone is *not* going to be able to complete >> a review > I think the same 1-2-3 days ACK period should apply to these (as discussed in another thread). >> and then we have to restart the month timer in the queue, especially >> for what I'm hoping is an early cursory review. Is one week enough >> time to complete a review of this sort, even if you are only asked to >> do one per month? > > 2 weeks should be enough. Most of IESG doing similar reviews within 1 > week, but I appreciate that people without proper "IESG training" > might need more time. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FD528C0D8 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:16:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3aLzxgg-KqIF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E504C28C0CF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:18:18 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D861A89.8070404@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:17:29 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Pete Resnick References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:16:48 -0000 Pete Resnick wrote: > Many people wrote: > >>> 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it >>> reasonable to ask people to look at one document per week for this >>> kind of quick review? >> >> No -- 1 per month > > It's pretty funny that everyone (including Alexey when I first brought > the idea to him) Yes, I told you so :-). > said exactly the same thing. Followup question: > Even if you were assigned one per month, what would be the amount of > time you would want from "pickup out of the queue" until "completion > of review"? What I worry about is the same thing SM is trying to > address with the initial proposed changes: I don't want to wait for a > month to find out that someone is *not* going to be able to complete a > review and then we have to restart the month timer in the queue, > especially for what I'm hoping is an early cursory review. Is one week > enough time to complete a review of this sort, even if you are only > asked to do one per month? 2 weeks should be enough. Most of IESG doing similar reviews within 1 week, but I appreciate that people without proper "IESG training" might need more time. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2209D28C0D8 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:13:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w4U-kv1B0rry for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B6728C0CF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KFExst018790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:15:04 -0700 Message-ID: <4D8619EF.9030407@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:14:55 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> <4D861764.9040208@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4D861764.9040208@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Pete Resnick , dcrocker@bbiw.net, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:13:34 -0000 On 3/20/2011 8:04 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I think this is a good format and it is quite similar to what GenArt and SecDir > teams are using. I hadn't thought about commonality across the IETF, but now that you've mentioned it, I suggest we try to get a single template defined for the entire IETF -- as long as it remains advisory rather than compulsory. Reviewers need to be able to make the actual decisions, but it helps to present a community preference. Unless someone can come up with a compelling reason for having differences, I think a common template would make style and expectations more consistent. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18B228C0D8 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52IOwe1IcNvi for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365FC28C0CF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:09:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1300633880; x=1332169880; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Sun, =2020=20Mar=202011=2010:11:18=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Resn ick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[apps-review]=20Early=20Cursory=20Revie ws|References:=20<6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@eland news.com>=09<4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com>=20<4D853F38.4 080203@dcrocker.net>=20|In-Reply-To:=20|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1 "=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.48.1]; bh=AVCnX3snDDm4QtQw/G/myKCtNe5cTEOGcW7Kaz37ZTI=; b=PIzcpn6OP0Un0a9iG1eslxHNGd0Vy1Ie9AjQoOrGXyzvHGwQEGSNTj9g wYjn8TM30s3zU4L3unDyrU4rikPOvJmbvfkak6QFd0lX9WwhnpzzDDtwL alXe+JXzbs+jjZXjEFt1elEy0zV1/F646harB2U59mfKSyWAg1S7PCEVN 0=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6290"; a="81030112" Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2011 08:11:20 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,214,1299484800"; d="scan'208";a="37270391" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 20 Mar 2011 08:11:19 -0700 Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:11:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:11:18 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:09:49 -0000 Many people wrote: >> 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it reasonable to ask people to look at one document per week for this kind of quick review? >> > No -- 1 per month It's pretty funny that everyone (including Alexey when I first brought the idea to him) said exactly the same thing. Followup question: Even if you were assigned one per month, what would be the amount of time you would want from "pickup out of the queue" until "completion of review"? What I worry about is the same thing SM is trying to address with the initial proposed changes: I don't want to wait for a month to find out that someone is *not* going to be able to complete a review and then we have to restart the month timer in the queue, especially for what I'm hoping is an early cursory review. Is one week enough time to complete a review of this sort, even if you are only asked to do one per month? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C8C28C0D8 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdH9hy8Dt7J8 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2730E28C0CF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:10:00 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:09:12 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:08:31 -0000 SM wrote: > Hello, Hi SM, A couple of comments: > I have been acting as Applications Area Review Team Lead for nearly a > year. My assessment is that the team is still not fully functional. > Alexey made some suggestions. Please comment on the following > suggested changes: > > There are three kinds of requests: > > (a) Early reviews requested by the Apps Area ADs > > (b) Review of a document in Last Call > > (c) Document on the IESG Agenda > > I would like to minimize requests for (c) as it would mean a short > deadline for assignments. GenArt and SecDir ask reviewers to confirm that their issues were addressed and/or appropriately discussed before documents are put on IESG telechat. Maybe we should do the same. [...] > The review template at > http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template suggests that > the review should provide a one-sentence summary, e.g.: > > (i) This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC > > (ii) This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational > RFC but > has a few issues that should be fixed before publication > > (iii) This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and > should be revised before publication > > followed by major issues, minor issues and nits. > > Major issues are the type of concerns that will result in the document > being blocked until they are resolved. > > Minor issues are concerns about clarity or technical accuracy that > should be discussed and resolved before publication, but which would > normally be resolved between the authors and the reviewers. > > Nits are editorial or layout items. They would ideally be resolved > before publication to make the document more readable. Usually a > reviewer will not be looking for this type of issue, but may find some > in the course of the review. > > If you have any other suggestions, please send them to the list. I also want to remind everybody that Apps Review Team reviews are treated as IETF LC comments and have no more weight then them. Sponsoring ADs should take them into considerations, but they might disagree with certain conclusions made by reviewers (e.g. which issues are major, which are minor, which are blocking, etc.). Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B0A3A6BC5 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTY68UoYnVZB for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F304B3A6BBC for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:04:50 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D861764.9040208@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:04:04 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:03:21 -0000 Dave CROCKER wrote: [...] >> followed by major issues, minor issues and nits. > > I usually follow a review format that has: > > 1. Summary of my understanding of the purpose and content of the > document. This is a common reviewing technique and it establishes a > base of factual understanding, before launching into the my opinions > about the quality of the content. If I have any misunderstanding of > the basics, it's better to surface that at the outset. I also find > that the discipline of formulating the factual summary helps to > organize my thoughts about the draft. > > 2. Summary of major issues > > 3. Inline detailed comments. For extended documents, the detailed > feedback is typically extensive and not subject to summarization. I > frankly do not know how to break it out into clean distinctions of > major/minor/nits without dramatically more work. In addition, my view > of major vs. minor vs. nit is likely not to match the authors'... > > Adding an explicit "rating" at the beginning seems like an excellent > idea; I'll try to remember to add one. I think this is a good format and it is quite similar to what GenArt and SecDir teams are using. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E623A6BBC for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_URGBIZ=0.725, URG_BIZ=1.585, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9fErGsB-BJy for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD32C3A6AAB for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:02:40 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D8616E1.1050807@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:01:53 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Claudio Allocchio , SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:01:10 -0000 Claudio Allocchio wrote: > I just add to the other comments... it looks quite good in general, but: > >> If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, >> it is assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review >> before the deadline. > > but this is not ok. Implicit ACK is bad, because we still do not have > internet on airplanes everywhere... and it might happen that we end up > on top of some mountain where there is no Internet connection (even > if, as you see, we answer email also on Saturday evening :-) ). > > Please change the implicit ACK with an explicit ACK, and 24 hours is > really only for very urgent requests (IESG queue) and should be used > only a very short urgent reviews. 2 *working* days is much more likely > to accomodate all. I would even say that 3 days might be Ok, with a second reminder being sent after 48 hours. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E2728B56A for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:54:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtKuTsZGt3bF for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243DD3A6BC5 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:55:58 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D86154D.9020005@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:55:09 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Pete Resnick References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:54:29 -0000 Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 3/19/2011 12:30 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > >> SM suggestions look good (caveat the concerns people have about >> auto-assigning >> things). But I did want to ask folks about one idea that I had to add >> on a task >> to the Review Team's normal things: >> >> In addition to doing Last Call reviews, I am considering asking folks >> on the >> review team to do the occasional preliminary early review. What I'm >> thinking of >> is creating a queue of documents from non-Apps WGs that might have Apps >> implications. > > +10. excellent idea. > >> 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? > > Definitely. Agreed. Should I populate the queue with my todo list ;-)? >> 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it >> reasonable to ask >> people to look at one document per week for this kind of quick review? > > Frankly, I think that one a /month/ will prove to be a lot. In spite > of characterizing it as "quick", meaningful review requires multiple > readings and iterative thought, before saying anything very useful, > particularly when the document has significant problems. > > The "quick" will help avoid doing the detailed part of the review, but > I find the difficult part of a review to be formulating coherent, > summary assessments. +1. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD603A6BC5 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zYSF2wq6EZW for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666E03A6BC4 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:16:51 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4D860C25.4090008@isode.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:16:05 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: apps-review@ietf.org, app-chairs@tools.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [apps-review] Apps Area chairs + secretaries + Apps Review Team lunch in Prague X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:15:38 -0000 Folks, There would be a traditional Apps lunch, but this time it is going to be on Thursday (March 31st) instead of Monday. Please mark your calendars and please bring topics you would like to discuss to the attention of Peter, Pete and myself. Thanks, Alexey Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA9A3A69E8 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:11:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNvT-U79wUCU for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk (nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.205]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFA53A6A45 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk (nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.33.33]) by nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p2KACTHq009558; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:12:33 GMT Received: from calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk (calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.24.15]) by nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KACTxx022429; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:12:29 GMT Received: from calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KACTe8009434; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:12:29 GMT Received: (from ht@localhost) by calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id p2KACSmP009430; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:12:28 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk: ht set sender to ht@inf.ed.ac.uk using -f To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> From: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:12:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> (Dave CROCKER's message of "Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:41:44 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.13.205 Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:11:22 -0000 =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 SM writes: > 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? Yes. > 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it > reasonable to ask people to look at one document per week for this > kind of quick review? No -- 1 per month maybe, and not, of course, when a 'real' review is also underway. Dave CROCKER writes: > The "quick" will help avoid doing the detailed part of the review, but > I find the difficult part of a review to be formulating coherent, > summary assessments. Exactly: "I'm sorry this is so long, I didn't have time to make it shorter" ht =2D --=20 Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged s= pam] =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFNhdMMkjnJixAXWBoRAjtUAJ9/EFaOA3ymn8dGai3hVMSs/9nhBgCdFAoL afMFdC0AseFj+2wjctKrw5Y=3D =3Dij22 =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96413A6A53 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:40:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yvrJe5G8ODUb for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95283A6A41 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JNfk96006489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:41:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:41:44 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:40:20 -0000 On 3/19/2011 12:30 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > SM suggestions look good (caveat the concerns people have about auto-assigning > things). But I did want to ask folks about one idea that I had to add on a task > to the Review Team's normal things: > > In addition to doing Last Call reviews, I am considering asking folks on the > review team to do the occasional preliminary early review. What I'm thinking of > is creating a queue of documents from non-Apps WGs that might have Apps > implications. +10. excellent idea. > 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? Definitely. > 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it reasonable to ask > people to look at one document per week for this kind of quick review? Frankly, I think that one a /month/ will prove to be a lot. In spite of characterizing it as "quick", meaningful review requires multiple readings and iterative thought, before saying anything very useful, particularly when the document has significant problems. The "quick" will help avoid doing the detailed part of the review, but I find the difficult part of a review to be formulating coherent, summary assessments. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C463A6A53 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:34:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xL9D1V0c9dUs for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604783A6A41 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JNaACE006204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:36:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4D853DE8.8070107@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:36:08 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110319095600.0bc0c0d8@elandnews.com> <4D85035A.6030308@bbiw.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110319140646.0c88b480@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319140646.0c88b480@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:34:51 -0000 On 3/19/2011 3:38 PM, SM wrote: > The real issue here is that the review is being assigned too late in the > process. The time-critical aspect can be avoided by identifying the document to > be reviewed earlier, i.e. when it is in Last Call. +10 > There are problems in getting reviews done. When I first took over, it looked > like an impossible task. Some people left the team and there was a shortage of > XML reviewers. Reviews requested by WG Chairs took months to be delivered due to > reassignments. my impression is that you've whipped us into much better shape, more recently... >> certainly agree it is excellent for you to do that. (By the same token, it is >> an extra burden for you and while it's great that you are willing to carry >> that burden, I would not want to write it into the formal job description, >> since the next person doing this job might not be willing or able to incur >> that extra effort.) > > I would not describe it as a burden as I signed up for it. I would like to hand > over a group that works to the next person doing the job. One of the problems with having a particularly eager and diligent person doing a task is that it is easy for the rest of us to lose sight of what is reasonable to demand, or at least expect, for the job. I meant "burden" as a formal obligation, not as something that you or your successor might or might not find excessive. > BTW, you message to apps-review was automatically discarded. I don't know why. hmmm. might have used the wrong From: address. this one ought to work. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA7E3A6A62 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.578, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I1vgZ+sYbNJO for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771603A6A41 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it (mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2JNOj9f042356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:24:46 +0100 (CET) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it p2JNOj9f042356 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=sXzCdL9tbGObZaJr+lm6bpySs6nssixv4+cX78P2zo33a7Zu4UaX0/u6XmocUkdZN lljDuxHtUrffjPLgE8DyIYy6v3MG1H3BkA66K9wo8C6ZFDRe8ZFBE9tRlS6toar+wn0 X+zXzYE3dMGt9Wn0XbsTTRmqWoOi8a7QF/rLL/A= Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:24:44 +0100 (CET) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it To: Pete Resnick In-Reply-To: <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:23:28 -0000 > 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? yes. As early to start watching a proposal, the easier it is also to discuss about it, avoind the "but the WG already extensively discussed this and agreed, why you now want to change it?" - it just happened in my last review for example. > 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it reasonable to > ask people to look at one document per week for this kind of quick review? one per week (per each individual) is really a lot, expecially if it comes from non-apps areas. You need some time to focus what the specification purpouse is, ... and often the "hey but this is going to have consequences here!" does not come after a first reading, but after "some meditation in the shower", when the how water runs out :-) The idea is a good one, but I'd say 1 doc per month is defintly more likely to be fulfiled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F3F3A6A71 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2NcX+w4QvYUJ for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0EB3A6A41 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so4092697qwg.31 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:15:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rLBCd4BIhPjW+k5VnGqIgDA5dxjAsz+j3IeQyaTPI64=; b=wk0rs2Cl+8ATNL2tY1VZ2giVer5iiRDpRPgU9zo9dffGG+topOogsfq1gKfkNWWHBh p9jz8ORiMhkO9g/VZKYouPCPvDQhatS1YHSAZ8aMBX4JApIJPm07XVN6sS+Yc3ZRlar5 5WeI/BuGlELcFYffM4miVej+4e80/chnx8Jx4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bM+nGs3s8yh8KZFVsDFuMol8eSk0yupIRm8HYqXyP/Y98/jja4yqa1bjWKw2+f36R4 Kh1so/rRs9FgWsVqNs6cEMUjfSM+4zE7iGG/QFcGeb/JQwvNTL5xxjBAYxfEiPTOScEt vB+OIbTK87nbIf3vtwrg9EqioZ5tPqRYNH+Qk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.43.1 with SMTP id u1mr2050071qce.214.1300576521968; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.74 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:15:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:15:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ted Hardie To: Pete Resnick Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:13:53 -0000 On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > SM suggestions look good (caveat the concerns people have about > auto-assigning things). But I did want to ask folks about one idea that I > had to add on a task to the Review Team's normal things: > > In addition to doing Last Call reviews, I am considering asking folks on the > review team to do the occasional preliminary early review. What I'm thinking > of is creating a queue of documents from non-Apps WGs that might have Apps > implications. For example, I think DNS stuff or things like MPTCP, which > will eventually need APIs, would be likely candidates for things I might > want to hear about, whereas BGP would probably not be one of these. In > general, the ADs would add things to the queue that send up their antennae, > but anyone would be welcome to throw something in the queue that they > thought might be interesting. Every so often, you'd be asked to do a cursory > read of the document and give a few sentence summary of whether or not Apps > clue might need to be given, the size of the clue (gentle nudge or large > bats), and the kinds of applications that would care. > > So the questions for the team: > > 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? Yes. > 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it reasonable to > ask people to look at one document per week for this kind of quick review? > This seems high. Even a cursory review takes time, and some of the ones you mention (like the DNS sameness question or multipath) can take some serious brain bending. It may be obvious that apps clue is needed, but getting to the point where you can set what sort of apps clue is needed takes more time. Once a month or even a hair more, on top of the current schedule, seems reasonable. Just my thoughts, Ted > One of the things I've been considering coming into the AD position is to > get more early review done (by everyone, not just me) rather than waiting > for Last Call, but without some sort of intelligent filtering, that would be > impossible I think. > > Thoughts? > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > > _______________________________________________ > apps-review mailing list > apps-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review > Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090BE3A6A29 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:42:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iZ1dWJ0MpfdW for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938643A6A4B for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JMhITI007188; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:43:30 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300574612; bh=dbUWhNzKWnLJjSRnrpzObDNxqJA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=nht92GcPhjksbKGaKaBdIJqxN85QQjELc8LTFYPFbt9gM7NR7x8Te8MvMKr/AZC5u lDzgFhNNUYZltNpPhzvfNYd08xUygZdRxxwauc3UeKPI7WasI0hvBitXjKWISfCGRK tN38ED5HLoS2wuhWlf+3xPN9KOVuNC3+ergQxTIs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319140646.0c88b480@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:38:54 -0700 To: Dave CROCKER From: SM In-Reply-To: <4D85035A.6030308@bbiw.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110319095600.0bc0c0d8@elandnews.com> <4D85035A.6030308@bbiw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:42:11 -0000 Hi Dave, At 12:26 19-03-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >Before there was computer communications, the word protocol referred >to rules of conduct among people. It is still used that way in some >circles. I used the term in an attempt to invoke a well understood >design concept among independent participants -- human as well as >computer: Failing to obtain explicit confirmation does not work, >for critical functions. I tried to get the message through without any undue risk to my personal safety. :-) >If there really is a time-critical aspect to the review, then it is >better to err on the side of sending a new query to a new reviewer >than to wait longer for the original reviewer to confirm. The >downside of contacting a new reviewer unnecessarily is two >reviews. The downside of waiting too long to contact the new >reviewer could well be no reivews. The explicit ACK would then mean five days for me to find a reviewer. If a review has a two week deadline, it turns into one week to get the review out so that the Apps Area ADs can read it before an IESG evaluation. The real issue here is that the review is being assigned too late in the process. The time-critical aspect can be avoided by identifying the document to be reviewed earlier, i.e. when it is in Last Call. >However that's different from setting expectations among all >participants -- that's us, in this case -- to know we have an >obligation to respond quickly. I did not intend it to be viewed as an obligation. It was meant as a target that I could tweak. >If there are deeper problems with this group -- and I wasn't aware >there was -- then they need to be addressed directly and not through >bits of indirect cleverness in specified conventions. We ain't very >good at subtlety around here... There are problems in getting reviews done. When I first took over, it looked like an impossible task. Some people left the team and there was a shortage of XML reviewers. Reviews requested by WG Chairs took months to be delivered due to reassignments. >certainly agree it is excellent for you to do that. (By the same >token, it is an extra burden for you and while it's great that you >are willing to carry that burden, I would not want to write it into >the formal job description, since the next person doing this job >might not be willing or able to incur that extra effort.) I would not describe it as a burden as I signed up for it. I would like to hand over a group that works to the next person doing the job. BTW, you message to apps-review was automatically discarded. I don't know why. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB103A6A8C for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.276, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_URGBIZ=0.725, URG_BIZ=1.585, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G8iZ5oUd39i9 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B5F3A6A29 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JMhITG007188; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:43:27 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300574609; bh=H1k30bRLcqHgK2nSuWBtcaBDnT0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=l+Ls7EL5/FPpoiz7ptE9rxwx2wWDapbbq+CdJf/YlvYi2IQpsaarorN39pD4nIscp isKk5jALteLfLWifows3RzocOmGISGafkCWa8PjUpzTnmscAMuaBKVlHlUbO8UWL2X 49VDjqY7VpZJ02lETYxCScSaIvXuj5gb/qKn/ZJY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319134938.0c88a7d8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:06:31 -0700 To: Claudio Allocchio From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:42:11 -0000 Hi Claudio, At 11:53 19-03-2011, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >Please change the implicit ACK with an explicit ACK, and 24 hours is >really only for very urgent requests (IESG queue) and should be used >only a very short urgent reviews. 2 *working* days is much more >likely to accomodate all. As you have all argued against the impilcit ACK, let's go an explicit ACK of two days. I suggest that you let me get away with not specifying "working" as I would then have to keep track of national holidays around the world. :-) I reserve the right to ask for you to be dropped off the team if I do not receive an explicit ACK for three assignments over a period of six months. :-) >well, the above does not cover all possible compbinations, and >"structuring" too much requires a full list of combinations. Or... >the above are just "examples" of short summaries. The above are just "examples". >and Yes... IETF style application of the guidelines ("rough common >sense") works better than literals. :-) In the IETF, common sense is subjective. :-) Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27373A6A41 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPUAWSRRaSx3 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB333A6A29 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JMhITE007188; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:43:24 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300574606; bh=zy1j3DOFzlG5B1420f3SIDSVymU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=I7MWKh+UeTwsapqtUhtygVpC6utG0edUmRIkpjjntPeJlSmVx6qo77zi0cnDuk4vo tCmDagjSfbNjCpu1SIu2GHQ/M5Eg7ctJEYJcktMVeXEZjyNJG1J3/Ga1J/0eKZ2Zdr btyz86e0KFSX1iNGMTXxW0hfmgcHtGdD5Le6wiho= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319121023.0c72ad28@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:49:21 -0700 To: John C Klensin From: SM In-Reply-To: <05A237D09124CB78F8E0E7DA@PST.JCK.COM> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <05A237D09124CB78F8E0E7DA@PST.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:41:57 -0000 Hi John, At 09:33 19-03-2011, John C Klensin wrote: >This generally looks ok. I agree with Dave -- implicit ACK is >not a good protocol, especially so when you are anticipating a >24 hour timeout. As strange as the idea may seem, some of us do >end up with travel, day job, or other commitments that might >result in our being offline wrt review team messages for >significantly longer than that (e.g., while I hope to do better, >my current expectation is that I'll be offline all of the week >starting April 4 due to circumstances entirely beyond my >control). For what it is worth, some of the reminders I send go unanswered. The people who have been arguing against implicit ACK are the same people who reply within 24 hours and who perform the assignments. :-) I mentioned it in my previous replies and I'll say it to you too, I agree with the arguments you raised above. If you look at the tracker ( http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-tracker ), you will see that there was only one review in July 2010. The month after that was an odd case. There were 14 reviews in September, 2010. This was preceded by discussions on how to make the team functional. The drop in January 2011 is due to the end of year season. February and March were slow as I received a few review requests. >Although I usually try to make "major/minor/nits" distinctions >when doing reviews, I agree with Dave that it can sometimes be >very difficult, with rather subjective boundaries, and >time-consuming. I think you should try to be clear about >priority for that sort of breakdown when you might be able to >get it only at the price of a delayed review or no review at >all. The major/minor/nits distinction is what typically appears in our reviews. It is not an ID-nits that the review must pass. I personally would not ask for a specific format for reviews. The Apps Area ADs may have a preference. I'll defer to them on that as our task is also to make their work easier. There is an indirect readership. Some people not be familiar with the IETF might be considering writing an I-D. It is easier for them to learn from the reviews about what major issues to look out for if there are these boundaries. It takes time for people to understand that the boundaries are subjective. There is nothing this team can do about that. I'll leave it to Alexey, Peter and Pete to comment on the priority for the breakdown. >Perhaps as the basis for a different classification system for >standards track documents, I also think that it would be very >useful to get a reviewer opinion that distinguished between "not >yet ready for publication given the criteria for the relevant >maturity level in RFC 2026 (as amended)" and "not ready for >publication using other criteria that the author thinks are >appropriate". Especially from the standpoint of those of us who >believe that the IETF spends too much time fine-tuning >early-stage specifications, making that distinction might be >helpful for the IESG and a useful reminder for everyone else. This is again subjective as we may have different views about RFC 2026. From an Apps Area perspective, I do not feel strongly about this. I may have different views if you ask me on another mailing list. :-) There is always room for improvement in an I-D. An I-D with an intended status of Proposed Standard might have a higher bar than one intended as Experimental. If a document is not ready for publication as Proposed Standard, it does not mean that the document does not fit the criteria for Experimental. A review could recommend a different publication status. >Finally, I strongly favor your inclination (and Martin's) to >make this process descriptive rather than normative/rigid. Although I did not mention it on this thread, I am aware that everyone on the team is doing volunteer work. Some of you may be doing the reviews during your free time and you have other commitments as well. Although I could ask for team members to be dropped from the team, it is the Apps Area ADs that have the final say. I can only say "please do the assignment". Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BB03A698C for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25BD0-Du0Qew for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6CF3A69A1 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1300563030; x=1332099030; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Sa t,=2019=20Mar=202011=2014:30:27=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20SM=20 |CC:=20|Subject:=20Early=20Cursory =20Reviews=20(Was:=20Suggested=20changes=20for=20Applicat ions=20Area=0D=0A=20Review=20Team)|References:=20<6.2.5.6 .2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com>|In-Reply-To:=20 <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" =3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.39.5]; bh=Kq+B6P2bUmYoqLSosH+TLtROJ5KXFVeCmDTckekcVW4=; b=e0uYmYpxvsNN6B7HEfNVbKcRX2pB89d8pZYvm6Ll5xSNMN+6VoZRnc99 K1UML2NYQrW/uRRVHftg9gglnGRPlzzf5822Jw1v8PRlsOz+Qtkkyw9Fb okxh24S3j1PnADpDOoQsR0Z1VDuHnQZDUZum2mGY5UcUxu2eAprv2nN7A A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6290"; a="80759920" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2011 12:30:30 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,210,1299484800"; d="scan'208";a="21705798" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 19 Mar 2011 12:30:30 -0700 Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:30:29 -0700 Message-ID: <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:30:27 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:09:18 -0700 Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews (Was: Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team) X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:29:00 -0000 SM suggestions look good (caveat the concerns people have about auto-assigning things). But I did want to ask folks about one idea that I had to add on a task to the Review Team's normal things: In addition to doing Last Call reviews, I am considering asking folks on the review team to do the occasional preliminary early review. What I'm thinking of is creating a queue of documents from non-Apps WGs that might have Apps implications. For example, I think DNS stuff or things like MPTCP, which will eventually need APIs, would be likely candidates for things I might want to hear about, whereas BGP would probably not be one of these. In general, the ADs would add things to the queue that send up their antennae, but anyone would be welcome to throw something in the queue that they thought might be interesting. Every so often, you'd be asked to do a cursory read of the document and give a few sentence summary of whether or not Apps clue might need to be given, the size of the clue (gentle nudge or large bats), and the kinds of applications that would care. So the questions for the team: 1. Is this the sort of thing you think you all would be willing to do? 2. How often would you be willing to do it? For example, is it reasonable to ask people to look at one document per week for this kind of quick review? One of the things I've been considering coming into the AD position is to get more early review done (by everyone, not just me) rather than waiting for Last Call, but without some sort of intelligent filtering, that would be impossible I think. Thoughts? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D843A69B8 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.769 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Tw10kF0snCH for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7B63A69BB for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JJA7vU028850; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:10:17 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300561819; bh=N+w6E5btdiiw9jypBRu2pOcAhWE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=sDooqfvAgzav8rePpR8ymc6rQDIl+JCr55rcESk1F+ea5jzObuYhU15UMbLEGWY5t zg4rrk1oRmuVJyFQtkjF/z3soRsbNhX6vMksTTP9diPs7DveRlNuamTHePE34Eh9pQ hfXMepiPzkLv2BB1OvoaibTrhvqw5MJr1AlBR7vg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319095600.0bc0c0d8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:09:04 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: SM In-Reply-To: <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:08:57 -0000 Hi Dave, At 08:48 19-03-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >I suggest that all assignments MUST receive an explicit >acknowledgment. I'm not sure what the timeout should be for the >less urgent ones, but 24 hours seems fine for the IESG (relatively urgent) one. > >But a default ack is not a good protocol construct for critical functions... I agree. However, we are not working on a protocol here. This is a people issue. If I assign you a review, I know that you will send an ack within 24 hours. If you do not do that, I would wait for a couple of days as I know that you generally do reply to emails. If I go for MUST receive an explicit acknowledgement, I already have historical evidence that it will fail in at least 50% of cases even if I wait five working days for an answer. I'll be candid. The suggested changes are to get team members to actually perform the assignments instead of having an Applications Area Review Team in name only. The latest review was assigned to Carsten. It falls within an IETF period where he will be travelling to Prague and he will be busy at the meeting. I do take that into account. My choices are simple; I can tell Alexey and Peter that the review cannot be done within two weeks or I can discuss with Carsten to find an alternative that fits his schedule. I prefer the latter. That is why I told him that he can take more than two weeks. From past experience, I know that he will deliver on the review. I prefer not to comment on specific cases of reviews that have not been performed. Alexey and Peter probably know about them even though I did not discuss the cases with them. >I usually follow a review format that has: > > 1. Summary of my understanding of the purpose and content of the > document. This is a common reviewing technique and it establishes a > base of factual understanding, before launching into the my > opinions about the quality of the content. If I have any > misunderstanding of the basics, it's better to surface that at the > outset. I also find that the discipline of formulating the factual > summary helps to organize my thoughts about the draft. Thanks for sharing this. It would help the Apps Area ADs if the summary clearly states whether the document is ready for publication. > 2. Summary of major issues > > 3. Inline detailed comments. For extended documents, the > detailed feedback is typically extensive and not subject to > summarization. I frankly do not know how to break it out into > clean distinctions of major/minor/nits without dramatically more > work. In addition, my view of major vs. minor vs. nit is likely > not to match the authors'... > >Adding an explicit "rating" at the beginning seems like an excellent >idea; I'll try to remember to add one. The clean distinctions are certainly more work and it is not always clear what should be major or minor. And as you said, it may not necessarily match the author's or even the Apps Area ADs' view. I'll use the review of apps-team review of draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07 as an example ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02268.html ). As Joshua mentioned, the I-D is an update to RFC 4741 and has therefore "stood the test of time". If the reviewer gives a "Do Not Publish" in such a case, it won't stop publication. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD0D3A69B8 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p6XxtSKwil3X for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726393A698C for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JJA7vS028850; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:10:13 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300561815; bh=X5HxDMlN+nVeq2ZL1ZXvGJxgok4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Q3YteQgqJX3i2x9WhhXJgiminDJEQAkO6n/4UKxG4+GeVN6zD8CYmOmXXaBwvSV/u WtVb7+LrdxUZkUpUbqXJZg8jEFDvBt9CmUGtt5pLrBovusu+hWNxB9HkOrhDTYGu5w Jc4uXZ2GPHvY11uy2B5LGJmSKjW9fpaxMMpDXtk4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319090020.0882cb68@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:55:47 -0700 To: Kurt Zeilenga From: SM In-Reply-To: <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:08:45 -0000 Hi Kurt, At 06:34 19-03-2011, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >I think this is a poor assumption to make. The reviewer might have >dropped off the face of the Internet for a few days, or might even be dead. I agree that it is a poor assumption to make. It may happen that the reviewer is travelling for over a day or that he or she is without Internet connectivity for several days. I have experienced both cases. >I suggest instead that after 24 hours without a response, the team >lead either reassign (such as when time for the review is short) or >give the assigned reviewer another 24 hours to respond. After 48 >hours of now response, always reassign. > >I also would not count hours of weekend and days of the reviewer's >national holidays against those hours. I'll try to explain the problem from my perspective. Some team members do not respond to a request for review even after 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays). I reassigned the review in such cases. After a while, it turned into reviews being assigned to a small subset of the team. If I have to reassign three out of five assignments, it leaves me with very little choice especially when a specific expertise is required. And that is what happened last year. This team does not operate like other review teams; the next team member in line for an assignment may have to be skipped when, for example, XML expertise is desired. You performed all the assignments that you got. The same cannot be said about every team member. I can go to Alexey and Peter and say that I am using the well-established "procedures". In practice, we know that the "process" don't work. Or I can make assumptions that do not look good on paper. In practice, some teams members may end up on the pending reviews list and I can walk to the Alexey and Peter and say that I found a good excuse to drop them from the team. I know that some people listed on the pending reviews list are very busy. As I have met some of them, I gather that they can tell whether I would drop them due to personal disagreements. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258A63A69A1 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_URGBIZ=0.725, URG_BIZ=1.585] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQexp5RHz4rD for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BA73A699C for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it (mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2JIrwSQ024316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:54:00 +0100 (CET) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it p2JIrwSQ024316 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=lEcvTKvHw6a/T3ZfDJUtc/VfZVnhimZgzzBDOZ712qX2fbgZLZEfmXa/i++QqWUTp NrIVsnZHDHuQ1vKvCVmLk1TjwxA8cF0W7hNh3NU2lXovil9vPcKjLziNAN8W9pFraz+ 5dRGl5nDAOd70OPsz+R2Z1NXNLUBCEK/S6RFpGw= Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:53:58 +0100 (CET) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it To: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:52:47 -0000 I just add to the other comments... it looks quite good in general, but: > If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, it is > assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review before the > deadline. but this is not ok. Implicit ACK is bad, because we still do not have internet on airplanes everywhere... and it might happen that we end up on top of some mountain where there is no Internet connection (even if, as you see, we answer email also on Saturday evening :-) ). Please change the implicit ACK with an explicit ACK, and 24 hours is really only for very urgent requests (IESG queue) and should be used only a very short urgent reviews. 2 *working* days is much more likely to accomodate all. > (i) This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC > > (ii) This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC but > has a few issues that should be fixed before publication > > (iii) This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and > should be revised before publication well, the above does not cover all possible compbinations, and "structuring" too much requires a full list of combinations. Or... the above are just "examples" of short summaries. and Yes... IETF style application of the guidelines ("rough common sense") works better than literals. :-) all the best! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C453A6931 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.634 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i5p--zILAN7J for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939733A692E for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Q0z6A-000LTk-3a; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:33:54 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:33:53 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: SM , apps-review@ietf.org Message-ID: <05A237D09124CB78F8E0E7DA@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:32:25 -0000 --On Saturday, March 19, 2011 00:50 -0700 SM wrote: > Hello, > > I have been acting as Applications Area Review Team Lead for > nearly a year. My assessment is that the team is still not > fully functional. Alexey made some suggestions. Please > comment on the following suggested changes: >... This generally looks ok. I agree with Dave -- implicit ACK is not a good protocol, especially so when you are anticipating a 24 hour timeout. As strange as the idea may seem, some of us do end up with travel, day job, or other commitments that might result in our being offline wrt review team messages for significantly longer than that (e.g., while I hope to do better, my current expectation is that I'll be offline all of the week starting April 4 due to circumstances entirely beyond my control). Although I usually try to make "major/minor/nits" distinctions when doing reviews, I agree with Dave that it can sometimes be very difficult, with rather subjective boundaries, and time-consuming. I think you should try to be clear about priority for that sort of breakdown when you might be able to get it only at the price of a delayed review or no review at all. Perhaps as the basis for a different classification system for standards track documents, I also think that it would be very useful to get a reviewer opinion that distinguished between "not yet ready for publication given the criteria for the relevant maturity level in RFC 2026 (as amended)" and "not ready for publication using other criteria that the author thinks are appropriate". Especially from the standpoint of those of us who believe that the IETF spends too much time fine-tuning early-stage specifications, making that distinction might be helpful for the IESG and a useful reminder for everyone else. Finally, I strongly favor your inclination (and Martin's) to make this process descriptive rather than normative/rigid. john Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE0B3A6AD7 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.850, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wuyEEEJeS4u2 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D223A6AB0 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JG9DVq019702; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:09:20 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300550963; bh=8zu3NtNURP2X7dHhkkcSGgCjVwI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=2b27E6xLWDYjP2aJHhupOalZZbMSUtswTQIJho4pGLU99Rz/Zf6bJivnUuySTmjY2 QVZ9Ou1LSpBmB8F491DaPPLoRHfQD7t/5M067Lmx90SMdqgNHZ0nI83pXSy9/tgZuF iUlYbWHNr1HyFgF1Z5OPJbHgtu77bgHeZbrm+4yQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319073319.0bc0a4b8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:00:09 -0700 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= From: SM In-Reply-To: <4D847BF5.6020001@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D847BF5.6020001@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:07:58 -0000 Hi Martin, At 02:48 19-03-2011, Martin J. D=FCrst wrote: >I think this looks good, except that I would add=20 >that (as usual in the IETF) these rules should=20 >be applied according to circumstances, not strictly according to the= letter. I would like it to be read as "this is how we do=20 things" instead of official rules. I agree that=20 it should be applied according to the=20 circumstances and not strictly to the letter. Some of the team members have asked to take leave=20 for various reasons. For example, if you tell me=20 that your spouse is expecting a baby, I will ask=20 you how much time off you would like to=20 take. Some people may ask for one month, some=20 may say three months. If you ask for nine months=20 and you are not biologically inclined for it, I=20 will say that the leave is too long. :-) If Ted, Claudio or Eliot tell me that they are=20 busy and they won't be able to take several=20 assignments, I do not have to question that as I=20 know that they performed 10 of the 35 reviews last year. Some of you are document editors and WG Chair=20 while seeing to your day job. You might be very=20 busy. The circumstances justify not being able=20 to perform an assignment. But it does not work=20 for me when over two thirds of the team members=20 fit that profile. I can then only count on one=20 third of the team to perform the reviews. The=20 end result will be a dysfunctional team once again. Best regards, -sm=20 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544BC3A690A for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:47:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HuSKRbBl2Px for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765C43A68D9 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JFn2iR004832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:49:07 -0700 Message-ID: <4D84D06B.2070600@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:48:59 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:47:41 -0000 Overall, the plan looks fine to me. Two points: On 3/19/2011 12:50 AM, SM wrote: > If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, it is > assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review before the deadline. I suggest that all assignments MUST receive an explicit acknowledgment. I'm not sure what the timeout should be for the less urgent ones, but 24 hours seems fine for the IESG (relatively urgent) one. But a default ack is not a good protocol construct for critical functions... > followed by major issues, minor issues and nits. I usually follow a review format that has: 1. Summary of my understanding of the purpose and content of the document. This is a common reviewing technique and it establishes a base of factual understanding, before launching into the my opinions about the quality of the content. If I have any misunderstanding of the basics, it's better to surface that at the outset. I also find that the discipline of formulating the factual summary helps to organize my thoughts about the draft. 2. Summary of major issues 3. Inline detailed comments. For extended documents, the detailed feedback is typically extensive and not subject to summarization. I frankly do not know how to break it out into clean distinctions of major/minor/nits without dramatically more work. In addition, my view of major vs. minor vs. nit is likely not to match the authors'... Adding an explicit "rating" at the beginning seems like an excellent idea; I'll try to remember to add one. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3533A6A09 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:33:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZxy3bs-lvgy for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F61C3A690C for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.42.5] (75-141-240-242.dhcp.reno.nv.charter.com [75.141.240.242]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:34:40 +0000 From: Kurt Zeilenga In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:34:37 -0700 Message-Id: <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:33:14 -0000 On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:50 AM, SM wrote: > If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, = it is assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review = before the deadline. I think this is a poor assumption to make. The reviewer might have = dropped off the face of the Internet for a few days, or might even be = dead. I suggest instead that after 24 hours without a response, the team lead = either reassign (such as when time for the review is short) or give the = assigned reviewer another 24 hours to respond. After 48 hours of now = response, always reassign. I also would not count hours of weekend and days of the reviewer's = national holidays against those hours.=20 -- Kurt Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008823A6A31 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.815 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.975, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2SjpFvgcXxfB for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.20.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C9B3A67FC for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acmse02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.20.226]) by acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p2J9nJQe023786 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:49:20 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by acmse02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 149f_d846_2951075a_520e_11e0_927e_001d0969ab06; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:49:19 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:37903) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:49:17 +0900 Message-ID: <4D847BF5.6020001@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:48:37 +0900 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Pete Resnick , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:48:01 -0000 I think this looks good, except that I would add that (as usual in the IETF) these rules should be applied according to circumstances, not strictly according to the letter. Regards, Martin. On 2011/03/19 16:50, SM wrote: > Hello, > > I have been acting as Applications Area Review Team Lead for nearly a > year. My assessment is that the team is still not fully functional. > Alexey made some suggestions. Please comment on the following suggested > changes: > > There are three kinds of requests: > > (a) Early reviews requested by the Apps Area ADs > > (b) Review of a document in Last Call > > (c) Document on the IESG Agenda > > I would like to minimize requests for (c) as it would mean a short > deadline for assignments. > > Reviews requested by Apps Area ADs could include a list of issues to > look for when specific reviewer expertize is required. > > When an assignment is made, the review can: > > (i) acknowledge that he or she can perform the review before the deadline > > (ii) acknowledge that he or she can perform the review but he or she > requires more time > > (iii) decline the assignment > > If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, it > is assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review before > the deadline. > > Team members that have been unable to perform three assignments over a > six month period can be dropped from the team. > > The review template at > http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template suggests that the > review should provide a one-sentence summary, e.g.: > > (i) This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC > > (ii) This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC but > has a few issues that should be fixed before publication > > (iii) This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and > should be revised before publication > > followed by major issues, minor issues and nits. > > Major issues are the type of concerns that will result in the document > being blocked until they are resolved. > > Minor issues are concerns about clarity or technical accuracy that > should be discussed and resolved before publication, but which would > normally be resolved between the authors and the reviewers. > > Nits are editorial or layout items. They would ideally be resolved > before publication to make the document more readable. Usually a > reviewer will not be looking for this type of issue, but may find some > in the course of the review. > > If you have any other suggestions, please send them to the list. > > Best regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > apps-review mailing list > apps-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review > -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C0A3A6A0D for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2kKGQsIYGir8 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3A63A69BE for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2J7p6nY026080; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:51:11 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300521073; bh=+iF/WcUpFfUigPBHi7uTPkfjrgg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=NMwIWHNWkCUakO7yufKqQzVgFrftOB3qyq4pZMgJ2uYNWVj9mkOS38qIYryA+EWuH C42RyFypmMDjbmi59dMHJvem5qkf0zl4zFx/uWguuhm2DSLmWxNKnFJ+Lab9bwIC2s KYBhd2vE33CjEpFD45zPjh3/l1QRVWmsj0+BqIlU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:50:46 -0700 To: apps-review@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Pete Resnick Subject: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:49:47 -0000 Hello, I have been acting as Applications Area Review Team Lead for nearly a year. My assessment is that the team is still not fully functional. Alexey made some suggestions. Please comment on the following suggested changes: There are three kinds of requests: (a) Early reviews requested by the Apps Area ADs (b) Review of a document in Last Call (c) Document on the IESG Agenda I would like to minimize requests for (c) as it would mean a short deadline for assignments. Reviews requested by Apps Area ADs could include a list of issues to look for when specific reviewer expertize is required. When an assignment is made, the review can: (i) acknowledge that he or she can perform the review before the deadline (ii) acknowledge that he or she can perform the review but he or she requires more time (iii) decline the assignment If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, it is assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review before the deadline. Team members that have been unable to perform three assignments over a six month period can be dropped from the team. The review template at http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template suggests that the review should provide a one-sentence summary, e.g.: (i) This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC (ii) This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC but has a few issues that should be fixed before publication (iii) This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and should be revised before publication followed by major issues, minor issues and nits. Major issues are the type of concerns that will result in the document being blocked until they are resolved. Minor issues are concerns about clarity or technical accuracy that should be discussed and resolved before publication, but which would normally be resolved between the authors and the reviewers. Nits are editorial or layout items. They would ideally be resolved before publication to make the document more readable. Usually a reviewer will not be looking for this type of issue, but may find some in the course of the review. If you have any other suggestions, please send them to the list. Best regards, -sm Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164BE3A6B1D for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klxmZe5kmkDz for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BB03A6A72 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2FIuH0g024168; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:56:23 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300215385; bh=OVHUeipfET5qE8/Kw6GLVJtQCVE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=RQzWt3Z4IUlN1QWXE/ZcxN7rgok9hme+j9knWUJsmqNvqHKsgQhQqpeJVyk5e72Xu kBw3JH9cVngjBwxZ8Bg3PU7li/yRoRFGgllr/xBFBWpzLv4DRAjC4EQyMsei1n3+nA cwkGtnvxWa2l/bqWvGXJnCh9ZlBp2A/k0q7xpZS0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110315114715.09323be0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:56:07 -0700 To: Carsten Bormann From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Sandra Murphy , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-09 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:55:05 -0000 Hi Carsten, Alexey requested a review of draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-09, in particular the XML schema. The review has been assigned to you and is due by March 29. If you need more time, please contact me. You can find information about the author and WG in the datatracker ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning/ ). Some previous reviews from the Apps-review Team are accessible at http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the IESG, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. The subject of the email when submitting the review should be "apps-team review of draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-09". Best regards, -sm