From nobody Thu Nov 13 12:34:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD36E1AD213; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:34:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqUdVnHCu7sH; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D44151AD1FE; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:33:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sADKXm2d013131; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:33:48 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3f6.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sADKXid8013066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:33:46 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:33:42 -0000 Message-ID: <09b801cfff81$1fa38d30$5eeaa790$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac//gRvHTAApV00AQHuHWSClAwdr2w== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21102.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.694-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--3.694-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 86K41fq+DnKgVtmaxVWDUQhWgIsZuXlP9mnDjfUPq548NgKHeFXN4Twy Qxox87JoPC8780v5YN4fZdczzDm/uk1+zyfzlN7y/sToY2qzpx5q8/xv2Um1avoLR4+zsDTtiPb fA0kXryGFjftrhep8r/LC5hOej0pzxCio7QukrfEmnZi0t0roxOh6vUQky8b7LLR5nF3ltXgVUh luC41uNBWJz0qF3xvHJIWB1QP6/JM= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dir-coord/bCwVhAKLLMP7USG3ddbxXXflbs8 Cc: manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Justin Dean , draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis@tools.ietf.org Subject: [dir-coord] MIB Dr review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis X-BeenThere: dir-coord@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "This is an e-mail alias for the organisers of IETF directorates." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:34:53 -0000 draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis is approaching WG last call in the MANET working group. The authors have requested a MIB doctor review to check they are not doing anything stupid. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Thu Nov 13 12:52:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC741AD41E; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:51:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.715 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iC1BJywN2Slg; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88AE71AD443; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) Received: internal info suppressed Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:50:48 +0100 (CET) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@dhcp-9f90.meeting.ietf.org To: Adrian Farrel In-Reply-To: <09b801cfff81$1fa38d30$5eeaa790$@olddog.co.uk> Message-ID: References: <09b801cfff81$1fa38d30$5eeaa790$@olddog.co.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1415911857; bh=wCElrisWTLjr8fFQUBxSEy3qPs/p6IYCEi7zJQ0R2lQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Psszo+e7sJsDnFLbXAnBRhkeCiA+igNqlB3hMpvJpHR20MmY4oWQ3a+Z+J4sZl6yE d/iu7KpfhvbHSsrqCBdYP8cZwy6ARyhg51FZlubt/jL3I6kQtsTYc/LR26bzt0sCW+ 2GhykAe+2932TT0jlvPz8stWsFvtYMepyrqDpMGk= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dir-coord/EZ3AxvR7mmzoVZl34CqCnS4FBGg Cc: mib-doctors@ietf.org, appsDir@ietf.org, ops-ads@tools.ietf.org, Justin Dean , draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis@tools.ietf.org, manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org, dir-coord@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dir-coord] MIB Dr review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis X-BeenThere: dir-coord@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is an e-mail alias for the organisers of IETF directorates." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:51:48 -0000 On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote: > draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis is approaching WG last call in the MANET working > group. > > The authors have requested a MIB doctor review to check they are not doing > anything stupid. > > Thanks, > Adrian thanks for the request Adrian, it there also someone from AppsDir who can help for this review? > > _______________________________________________ > dir-coord mailing list > dir-coord@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dir-coord > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 From nobody Tue Nov 18 16:09:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E60C1A87CC; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:09:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27Ou41sXLMyJ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:09:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84AE41A87CA; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECF82CED0; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:09:08 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwqxr8gRqCLd; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:09:07 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B922CC4D; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:09:07 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) From: Jari Arkko Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:09:07 +0100 Message-Id: To: IETF WG Chairs Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dir-coord/_Y3qKQVaxNxyrR0oxCrM4G_DBxc Cc: dir-coord@ietf.org Subject: [dir-coord] reminder about early reviews X-BeenThere: dir-coord@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is an e-mail alias for the organisers of IETF directorates." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:09:49 -0000 Thanks for your hard work last week. I talked to one of my review teams, and found out that we have=20 not recently received any early review requests. I wanted to remind you that in cases where an early Gen-ART, etc review would be useful, you can request them by sending mail to the specific review team secretary or to the common review team list at dir-coord@ietf.org. The purpose of these early reviews is to move more of the IETF end-of-the-process work under the WG phase and under your management, and to get feedback slightly earlier than you would otherwise get it. Please find below an earlier e-mail describing the arrangement: > Internet Drafts sent for approval as RFCs are reviewed by individuals = during the IETF Last Call, the Area Directors, IANA, as well as a number = of volunteers from various directorates and review teams. The reviews = from these teams has gained a significant role in ensuring that the IETF = produces high-quality, understandable and implementable RFCs. >=20 > Yet, as discussed in = http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/ we have a = general problem that quite a lot of the work around IETF documents = happens at the end of the process. In particular, a number of the = reviews during IETF last call point out issues that end up being raised = by the IESG as comments. It is of course good that issues are caught, = but raising them earlier would be better. And it would be better if the = working groups - the intended focus point of work on a topic - would get = to handle them, as opposed to raising these issues with the IESG. The = IESG discussed these issues in its May 2013 retreat, and decided to = experiment with three actions designed to move more work to the = responsibility of the working groups: >=20 > (1) Perform some reviews that are now happening at IETF Last Call a = bit earlier. This will put the working group in a bigger role in = resolving cross-area and general issues. >=20 > (2) Invite document shepherds on IESG telechats when there's a = document that is likely to require discussion. This will make it = possible for the document shepherd to me directly be=20 >=20 > (3) When a document has a number of issues, hand over the process back = to the working group, as opposed to the IESG tracking the issues. Among = other things, this will ensure that changes are discussed in an open = working group list and agreed through consensus. >=20 > Some of you have seen (2) and (3) happen, more will come. For (1), = building quality and cross-area review to the process earlier is of = course a big effort. We plan to launch an experiment to make a small = change to current directorate review procedures to learn if we can move = reviews a little bit earlier. If successful, this experiment will enable = working groups to deal with issues before IETF Last Call and IESG review = and empower the working groups to be in charge of the documents = throughout their life cycle. We are also hoping that document quality = will improve and number of issues discussed in the IESG will be lower. >=20 > While the number of reviews as such is not changed, some additional = effort and care will however be required from the reviewers, directorate = coordinators/secretaries, the working group chairs, and other = participants. The experiment will show us whether this effort is = reasonable and if there are any unexpected effects. The experiment is = performed on a voluntary basis by each directorate. As early review = requests come in, the directorates can throttle workload by either = processing the requests or reverting to the existing procedures. = Initially, the Gen-ART, Security Directorate, and Applications Area = Directorate are included in this effort. Other directorates may be added = later. The experiment will be reviewed after six months. >=20 > Care must be taken to avoid a number of possible drawbacks. There may = be problematic documents that would require much re-review and effort. = Similarly, working groups often perform a number of working group last = calls on a document, and it would be undesirable to engage the reviewer = before the document was really ready to be sent forward. And when = reviewers send comments, it is important that the group listens to the = comments in the right way, like you would for a review from a security = expert or a general networking expert. E-mail practices around sending = and responding to comments have to be carefully managed, as the outside = reviewers are typically not list members. >=20 > For the working group chairs, you can request a review by sending mail = to dir-coord@ietf.org, indicating the name of the document. You can ask = for a review as soon as a working group last call has ended successfully = and the document edits are done. Initially, it would make sense to ask = for reviews on documents that you feel are likely the most stable ones. = To avoid congesting the reviewer resources, ask for this service only = for some documents, not as a wholesale service on every document you = submit for publication.=20 >=20 > You can ask for the review in parallel with ongoing AD reviews, = filling out the shepherd questionnaire, etc. The hope is that reviews = can come in in the same time frame as other tasks in this stage, and = that you can take the comments into account and revise the document = before finally sending it out for IETF Last Call. Reviews will be sent = to you and potentially the working group mailing list. You may need to = forward comments and/or approve new posters to the list. Discussion on = the mailing list is encouraged, but please try to ensure that the = reviewer is kept on the Cc line, as he or she may not be on the list = itself. Treat the reviews with respect and keep it in mind that outside = experts may have opinions that need to be taken into account, even if = the working group had not considered those aspects before. Mediate and = monitor the discussion actively. Try to keep the reviewer out of e-mail = storms and work out solutions separately and then engage the reviewer = again. >=20 > For the directorate coordinators/secretaries, please monitor the = dir-coord@ietf.list. If there is a request for a review, dispatch the = task to a reviewer. Managing overload is your task. Please acknowledge = requests and whether you can accommodate them. Directorates that today = review documents twice, at IETF Last Call and then before entering the = IESG telechat should continue this practice by doing the early review = and then the IESG telechat review. Existing practices such as retaining = the same reviewer for checking the same version is useful. Your review = tools and practices may need adjustment to accommodate reviews happening = at different times. >=20 > For the reviewers, take into account the context. Post your reviews to = the working group chairs, authors, and Cc the working group mailing list = if necessary. If your review team uses a template for these e-mails, = some changes may be necessary in the template for the early review. Some = of those changes have been discussed, e.g., in the Gen-ART list. Jari