Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:01:37 -0800

Hi Barry,

Could you review draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 before January 
20?  Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT 
post it to appsdir.

The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs 
and document shepherd, if applicable.  You can use the tools alias 
[email-masked] to cover the authors, 
WG chairs, and shepherd.  If your review recommends significant 
changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying 
the working group's mailing list.

Suggested distribution:
    To: [email-masked],  [email-masked]
    Cc: [email-masked]

You can view the Apps-review template at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template  Some previous 
reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:08:30 +0000

Hi SM, hi apps-dir fellows,

maybe a small proposal or question:
I noticed the appsdir mechanism to assign documents to reviewers is 
different to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is perfectly 
fine with me, if you choose so.
Just wondering whether there is a specific reason or just coincidence.
FYI, a typical sec-dir assignment email is added below.

In sec-dir, all assignments are done in one email to the list (about 
every 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the normal 
work going on and look for his assignments within this one email.

The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in a 
batch to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it harder to 
have an overview (because you have to read each assignment email 
individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e. tempting) to 
configure an incoming message filter that will file everything except 
emails sent directly to me into a folder for later reading. (Not sure 
whether that is the intent?)

Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way everybody 
in the team has an overview over the drafts currently under review and 
possible interactions, but have no strong opinion on that.
Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a batch, 
like yesterday.

Any comments?

Best regards, Tobias

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[secdir] Assignments
Date: 	Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST)
From: 	Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: 	[email-masked]
To: 	[email-masked]

I hope everyone had a good Christmas and has a pleasant and safe New
Year celebration.

As I observed last week, "most of the outstanding previosuly-assigned
docs are scheduled for [the January 5th telechat]".  If you have an
old assignment, that document is likely on the telechat next week.

Only four new assignments today.  Leif Johansson is next in the
rotation.

For telechat 2012-01-05

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Derek Atkins           T 2012-01-06 draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-04
Richard Barnes         T 2011-12-20 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09
Uri Blumenthal         T 2011-12-19 draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-01
Alan DeKok             T 2011-12-05 draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05
Alan DeKok             T 2012-01-06 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
Donald Eastlake        T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18
Shawn Emery            T -          draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
Tobias Gondrom         T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06
Love Hornquist-Astrand T 2011-12-29 draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06
Jeffrey Hutzelman      T 2011-12-26 draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
Tim Polk               T 2011-12-28 draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-13
Eric Rescorla          T 2011-12-29 draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04

For telechat 2012-01-19

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Rob Austein            T 2012-01-11 draft-ash-gcac-algorithm-spec-03
Phillip Hallam-Baker   T 2012-01-18 draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00
Jeffrey Hutzelman      T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07
Julien Laganier        T 2011-12-15 draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03

Last calls and special requests:

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Dave Cridland            2012-01-03 draft-os-ietf-sshfp-ecdsa-sha2-04
Steve Hanna              2012-01-13 draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
Sam Hartman              2012-01-05 draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-06
Paul Hoffman             2012-01-12 draft-ietf-alto-reqs-12
Love Hornquist-Astrand   2012-01-13 draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-07
Tina TSOU                2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-08
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:54:56 -0800

Hi Tobias,

Please excuse me as I don't know how to say all this in a politically 
correct manner.  The comments are not aimed at any individual including you.

At 18:08 10-01-2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>different to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is 
>perfectly fine with me, if you choose so.
>every 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the 
>normal work going on and look for his assignments within this one email.

I am aware of that. :-)

>The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in 
>a batch to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it 
>harder to have an overview (because you have to read each assignment 
>email individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e. 
>tempting) to configure an incoming message filter that will file 
>everything except emails sent directly to me into a folder for later 
>reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?)

It is more work for me to generate one email per 
assignment.  Mistakes happened, as you may have seen today, as I 
customize the message for each assignment.

The intent is to tell the reviewer which assignment he got.  The 
message is copied to appsdir so that there is a record of what was 
asked.  The team gets to see it and anyone who reads the public 
archives can see it.

>Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way 
>everybody in the team has an overview over the drafts currently 
>under review and possible interactions, but have no strong opinion on that.
>Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a 
>batch, like yesterday.

I would prefer that.  But I have to follow the approach which the team prefers.

Sec-dir works as people are used to the approach.  It also looks good 
on your resume when you list Sec-dir. :-)

The list of reviews which have been performed are at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker  Some of them 
were done before I took over as Team Lead.  Some people would do 
reviews, some would not.  Some people would ignore my emails.  As 
this is volunteer work, I rely on the goodwill of the reviewers to 
get the work done.

I don't have any history on how the work was done before my time.  I 
use the appsdir mailing list so that the next person who takes over 
can avoid my mistakes.  I try to keep everything as open and 
transparent as possible so that this team does not get labelled a 
kangaroo court ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg11994.html ) 
or an old boys club.  I complained when reviews were not given 
adequate consideration.  That is because I value the effort put in by 
the reviewer in performing a review.

I understand that some people can be unhappy with my approach.  I 
encourage people to talk to me or the Apps ADs (and I mean it) if 
there is anything they don't like.  If nobody asks questions (like 
you did), it is not possible for me to know what is being done 
correctly or incorrectly.

I don't know what a directorate should be like or what is best for 
it.  I hope each of you can derive a benefit from it while 
contributing to IETF work.  I need your expertise.  You don't need 
me.  As such, I don't have much leverage.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:31 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:55 PM
> To: Tobias Gondrom
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews
> 
> Hi Tobias,
> 

What my client is trying to say is that he's feeling a little overwhelmed by the responsibility he feels as the Apps Directorate team lead.  :-)

> >individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e.

What I would really like to see, though this would likely involve help from the tools team, is an advanced tracker where SM just has to add the name of a draft and perhaps check some boxes for the IETF area it comes from and some relevant subjects.  The tracker matches that up to the next reviewer in the rotation that matches one or more of those criteria (or, if none, just the next person) and makes the assignment, nagging the person if the review has not been submitted a bit before the due date, then again on the due date.  SM could make whatever overrides he likes, including accommodating people that volunteer to do certain reviews.

Even better would be to add a draft to our tracker automatically as soon as it hits Publication Requested or AD evaluation.  The emails would be generated by the system and the mailing list would only really be needed as a place to collect reviews and/or to discuss exceptions to the process, and mention people as they leave or are added to the team.

Rather than the summary like what SecDir currently gets, a single URL presents a dashboard of current AppsDir membership and activity.

Until we have that, I think either method (SecDir's or AppsDir's) is workable.  We don't see as much activity as SecDir does so I think it's less of a problem.  If we tried to review absolutely everything as SecDir does, I imagine the current mechanism would start to have scaling problems.

> I would prefer that.  But I have to follow the approach which the team

I'd be willing to give it a try if SM is.

> were done before I took over as Team Lead.  

I don't have any context for how it was done before as I joined the team about when SM did.  Given that, I think things are working just fine for us so far, especially given the nature of a team of volunteers with their own busy schedules.

> encourage people to talk to me or the Apps ADs (and I mean it) if there
> is anything they don't like.  If nobody asks questions (like you did),
> it is not possible for me to know what is being done correctly or
> incorrectly.

As I said, I suspect the current system is adequate given the size of the team and its current workload.  That doesn't mean our system is better or there's no room for improvement, but I haven't observed any pressure to shape up.  I think the meeting we had in Taipei was very productive toward improving our operation, for example.

> I don't know what a directorate should be like or what is best for it.
> I hope each of you can derive a benefit from it while contributing to
> IETF work.  I need your expertise.  You don't need me.  As such, I
> don't have much leverage.

You underestimate your value here, as usual.

-MSK

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:27:56 +0100 (CET)

my small preference... :-)

If I get the assignement like we do now on appsdir, I'm certain (well... 
at least 98% certain) that I do read all assignemt messages, and I 
definitly get those assigned to me or more interesting assigned to others.
Because I read them one-by-one...

If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is mch 
higher.

But that's because of the way I handle my email messages and work on 
them... nothing more.

SM also send summaries,... ok, they're post-mortem ones, e.g. what's been 
done during the last month. In case we feel it useful, we can send "also" 
assignment summaries; but I personally ("personally") do not see an 
advantage in doing that, and only further for for the current coordinator.

ok that's it, nothing really fundamental :-)

Claudio

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote:

> I noticed the appsdir mechanism to assign documents to reviewers is different 
> to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is perfectly fine with me, 
> if you choose so.
> In sec-dir, all assignments are done in one email to the list (about every 
> 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the normal work going on 
> and look for his assignments within this one email.
>
> The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in a batch 
> to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it harder to have an 
> overview (because you have to read each assignment email individually), but 
> actually would make it very easy (i.e. tempting) to configure an incoming 
> message filter that will file everything except emails sent directly to me 
> into a folder for later reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?)
>
> Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way everybody in the 
> team has an overview over the drafts currently under review and possible 
> interactions, but have no strong opinion on that.
> Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a batch, like 
> yesterday.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Best regards, Tobias
>
>
>
> Tobias Gondrom         T 2012-01-04 
> draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         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: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:34:34 -0800

Hello,

I noticed that there are non-team members who are subscribed to this 
mailing list.

At 22:47 10-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>What my client is trying to say is that he's feeling a little 
>overwhelmed by the

:-)

>  responsibility he feels as the Apps Directorate team lead.  :-)

I guess I would describe it more as a sense of responsibility towards 
each of you.

>Rather than the summary like what SecDir currently gets, a single 
>URL presents a dashboard of current AppsDir membership and activity.

That's a good way to display who is doing what.

>Until we have that, I think either method (SecDir's or AppsDir's) is 
>workable.  We don't see as much activity as SecDir does so I think 
>it's less of a problem.  If we tried to review absolutely everything 
>as SecDir does, I imagine the current mechanism would start to have 
>scaling problems.

My plan is to move to the SecDir approach once everyone feels 
familiar with what to review, where to send the review, etc.

>I'd be willing to give it a try if SM is.

Let me do the experiment and then try that one.

>I don't have any context for how it was done before as I joined the 
>team about when SM did.  Given that, I think things are working just 
>fine for us so far, especially given the nature of a team of 
>volunteers with their own busy schedules.

Yes, and I am quite surprised by that.

At 00:27 11-01-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is 
>mch higher.

As I am using the tracker nowadays, I would generate individual 
messages for the reviewer and send the batch of assignments and 
reviewer names to the list.

>SM also send summaries,... ok, they're post-mortem ones, e.g. what's 
>been done during the

It is good to have the summaries every month to tell who is doing what.

>  last month. In case we feel it useful, we can send "also" 

There is a list of WGs being tracked at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate 
The point was to have each member track some working groups and let 
us know if there is any draft which requires an Apps review.  Some of 
you have not filled in the information on that web page.

During our breakfast, we discussed about short summaries of what WGs 
were doing to get a sense of what is going on in the Apps Area.  The 
Apps ADs used to send monthly reports.  I found that useful.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:30:51 -0800

On 1/11/2012 12:27 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> If I get the assignement like we do now on appsdir, I'm certain (well... at
> least 98% certain) that I do read all assignemt messages, and I definitly get
> those assigned to me or more interesting assigned to others.
> If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is mch higher.

Just to emphasize, this is a basic human issue and not just Claudio's...

For an extreme version of this issue, for group-vs-individual targeting, take a 
look at at a description of the effect of dissipated personal responsibility 
about Kitty Genovese.

    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese>

A single message, to the responsible party, with a specific assignment, is by 
far the better tool for making the assignment and for reviewing assignments. 
The BCC nicely provides a public archive.

IMO, it's the right transactional unit.  Any aggregation requires an additional 
layer of processing.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:38:40 -0800

> The point was to have each member track some working groups and let us know if there is any draft which requires an Apps review.  

I just listed the groups for which I regularly read the working group email. I didn't know that I was supposed to let you know if there was a draft which required an Apps review, and I don't really know what criteria to apply to decide that. (Part of it is that I'm editor of drafts in most of the working groups I'm tracking.)

I'd be more comfortable if the WG chairs decided when drafts needed the review, rather than me.

Larry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:25:44 -0700

On 1/11/12 10:38 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> us know if there is any draft which requires an Apps review.
> 
> I just listed the groups for which I regularly read the working group
> email. I didn't know that I was supposed to let you know if there was
> a draft which required an Apps review, and I don't really know what
> criteria to apply to decide that. (Part of it is that I'm editor of
> drafts in most of the working groups I'm tracking.)
> 

I think it's a bit of "all of the above".

Speaking in my AD role, sometimes we're approached by ADs in other areas
about documents that will soon emerge out of their working groups.

Sometimes folks "in" the apps area are paying attention to work in other
areas (say, DANE) because many of us know that such work has
implications for applications.

Sometimes it would be nice for someone on the appsdir to speak up and
say "hey, there's some work going on in the FOO WG that we might want to
review".

Any and all of those are welcome as paths to adding documents to the
review list here.

IMHO, of course. :)

Peter

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

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:16:04 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 08:30 11-01-2012, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>For an extreme version of this issue, for group-vs-individual 
>targeting, take a look at at a description of the effect of 
>dissipated personal responsibility about Kitty Genovese.

Yes.

>A single message, to the responsible party, with a specific 
>assignment, is by far the better tool for making the assignment and 
>for reviewing assignments. The BCC nicely provides a public archive.

Do you mean a copy of the message to this mailing list?

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:08:51 +0800

On 12/01/12 00:30, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> targeting, take a look at at a description of the effect of dissipated 
> personal responsibility about Kitty Genovese.
>
> IMO, it's the right transactional unit.  Any aggregation requires an 
> additional layer of processing.
>
> d/

Hm.

Maybe before I start, let me re-iterate, I have no strong preferences, 
only thought the sec-dir approach might be beneficial for the team. So 
on my account we can also keep things as they are.
In the end it boils down to your work style: some prefer to read one 
email with a list which contains your name and assignment or scan a list 
of emails for some that may be relevant for you. Personally I prefer the 
first, but can equally see why others may prefer the latter.

However, taking from your comment and reference to the "Kitty Genovese" 
case, there might be a misconception of the process being used at sec-dir.
The Volunteer's dilemma would apply if the drafts were not assigned to 
individuals in sec-dir.
But that is a false assumption.

All assignments are per person (like at appsdir, as you can see in the 
list below, each person is assigned a specific draft and deadline (so 
there is no volunteer's dilemma)). In fact, by the way the list is 
"public" in the group and you can be sure that each member of sec-dir 
reads it (to see their own assignments) you actually even equally have 
some peer-pressure to fulfil your assignments as they are "public 
commitments" (plus you get the convenient overview of who is doing what, 
which can help to link two reviews if their drafts are related.)
Also to my knowledge nearly no reviews in sec-dir are slipped (at least 
not by me and the guys I know of). So I would take this as a 
confirmation the method works in principle.

Anyway, as I said I am also happy with appsdir's current process, just 
wanted to mention the option to handle things like in sec-dir.

Best regards, Tobias

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[secdir] Assignments
Date: 	Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST)
From: 	Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: 	[email-masked]
To: 	[email-masked]

For telechat 2012-01-05

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft

For telechat 2012-01-19

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
wiki:http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:38:09 -0800

Hi Tobias,
At 18:08 11-01-2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>>Also to my knowledge nearly no reviews in sec-dir are slipped (at 
>>least not by me and the guys I know of). So I would take this as a 

I was trying to get an explanation about that at the last IETF 
meeting.  I sent out eight assignments a few days ago.  I got an ack 
from the following people:

  John Klensin (review will be reassigned)
  Barry Leiba
  Alexey Melkinov
  Tim Bray

The following people have not responded yet:

  Carsten Bormann
  Salvatore Loreto
  Aaron Stone
  Xiaodong Lee (I know that there is a problem for him to email me)

According to the guidelines discussed on apps-review previously, I 
have to send out a reminder after two working days, then find someone 
another reviewer if there is no positive reply.  I have done that 
previously.  It took me ten days to get a reviewer.  Assuming that a 
review has to be delivered within two weeks (including weekends), 
that leaves only four days for the reviewer.  As the reviewers have 
different work patterns, this can end up being two days.  I could ask 
the Apps AD to defer the IESG evaluation of a draft to give a 
reviewer more time.  They might laugh at me as that is not an alternative.

draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 is an easy review.  It is 
highly unlikely that it will be given a " do not 
publish".  draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 has application area 
implications.  There has been some controversy about 
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01 and the topic is applications 
related.  It's not a problem if the first review slips; it is a 
problem for the last two reviews because they are the type of drafts 
that we are supposed to review.

A 50% success rate is not an option to me.  For your information, we 
had a 100% success rate last year.   I seriously don't know how that 
happened but that's where we are now.

I appreciate the feedback you and the other team members have 
provided.  It helps me to gain a better outlook.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:59:53 +0800

Hi sm,

well, it's not unusual for some hick-ups at the beginning of these 
review processes. So some things should improve over time...

But, if I may say so: actually I don't like the idea that you as the 
coordinator need to send a reminder if you don't get an ACK from the 
reviewer. That creates a lot of extra work on your end.
The best default should be that the assigned review will be done until 
the deadline (of course as long as that deadline is something reasonable 
 >72hours) unless the reviewer sends a deny (of course within lets say 
72hours).
A second bit that might be helpful: in sec-dir drafts are assigned in 
round-robin, so in case you get a deny from a reviewer you just assign 
the next on the list.
And if people are on long-term holidays they usually can let Sam (the 
sec-dir manager) know ahead of time so they will not get any drafts 
assigned during that period. (Of course mistakes happen, for example I 
once missed to notify him beforehand and then had to tell him after 
receiving the sec-dir assignments email, anyway the draft got reassigned 
to the next reviewer within hours.).

Btw. Sam might actually also have a number of nice scripts to automate 
some of the steps, maybe worth for you talking with him, whether there 
is something you can re-use to make your life easier.

Best regards, Tobias

On 12/01/12 15:38, SM wrote:
> review has to be delivered within two weeks (including weekends), that 
> leaves only four days for the reviewer.  As the reviewers have 
> the Apps AD to defer the IESG evaluation of a draft to give a reviewer 
> more time.  They might laugh at me as that is not an alternative.
>
> highly unlikely that it will be given a " do not publish".  
> draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 has application area implications.  There 
> has been some controversy about draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01 and 
> the topic is applications related.  It's not a problem if the first 
> review slips; it is a problem for the last two reviews because they 
> are the type of drafts that we are supposed to review.
>

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:19:35 +0100 (CET)

> A 50% success rate is not an option to me.  For your information, we had a 
> 100% success rate last year.   I seriously don't know how that happened but 
> that's where we are now.

One possibility:

... people are "just back" or "still" in holiday period, or are recovering 
the huge pile of email accumulated between Xmas and New Year. Not all of 
them read email 24/7, also on holidays.

I'm having the same "effect" every year also at home (GARR) and around the 
world: people who normally answer within 24 hours are answering after 1 
week, but then it goes back to normal trend.

But, if this continues, we shall really ask seriously to fulfil our time 
scheduled procedurs to all of us, or just say "no time, sorry".

> I appreciate the feedback you and the other team members have provided.  It 
> helps me to gain a better outlook.

you're doing a great job ! :-)

all the best!

> appsdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir
>

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:23:18 +0100 (CET)

> round-robin, so in case you get a deny from a reviewer you just assign the 
> next on the list.

well, applications is so wide range that you might end into somebody who's 
not the correct "expert" for that topic. If you check the AppsDir page, 
you see the "expertise fields", and there's a reason for it. Security (I 
also am in charge of Security Policy ar GARR) is much more coherent and 
scoped :-)

> And if people are on long-term holidays they usually can let Sam (the sec-dir 
> manager) know ahead of time so they will not get any drafts assigned during 
> that period. (Of course mistakes happen, for example I once missed to notify 
> him beforehand and then had to tell him after receiving the sec-dir 
> assignments email, anyway the draft got reassigned to the next reviewer 
> within hours.).

yes, this is good.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:57:37 -0800

Yes.

Yes.

My comment are not about the extra work though.  It is about not 
passing that extra work to the next team lead.

>The best default should be that the assigned review will be done 
>until the deadline (of course as long as that deadline is something 
>reasonable >72hours) unless the reviewer sends a deny (of course 
>within lets say 72hours).
>A second bit that might be helpful: in sec-dir drafts are assigned 
>in round-robin, so in case you get a deny from a reviewer you just 
>assign the next on the list.

The difference betweens Appsdir and Secdir is that the assignments 
are not always round-robin.  The expertise of the team is listed on 
the Appsdir web page as I need that information for expert 
reviews.  For example, the review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-uri-04 
was assigned to you as have the expertise 
required.  draft-ietf-decade-arch-04 was assigned to Carsten (thanks 
for the ACK) as I know that he is going to produce a good review.

>And if people are on long-term holidays they usually can let Sam 
>(the sec-dir manager) know ahead of time so they will not get any 
>drafts assigned during that period. (Of course mistakes happen, for 
>example I once missed to notify him beforehand and then had to tell 
>him after receiving the sec-dir assignments email, anyway the draft 
>got reassigned to the next reviewer within hours.).

I have asked to be notified if the person is going on vacation.  Most 
of the team do not notify me.

>Btw. Sam might actually also have a number of nice scripts to 
>automate some of the steps, maybe worth for you talking with him, 
>whether there is something you can re-use to make your life easier.

Thanks, I'll ask him about that.

At 00:19 12-01-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>... people are "just back" or "still" in holiday period, or are 
>recovering the huge pile of email accumulated between Xmas and New 
>Year. Not all of them read email 24/7, also on holidays.

I am taking that into account. :-)

At 00:23 12-01-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>well, applications is so wide range that you might end into somebody 
>who's not the correct "expert" for that topic. If you check the 
>AppsDir page, you see the "expertise fields", and there's a reason 
>for it. Security (I also am in charge of Security Policy ar GARR) is 
>much more coherent and scoped :-)

Yes.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:42:26 -0800

Hi Dave,
>Yes.

I didn't catch what you meant until now.  If I use a Bcc instead of a 
Cc, it is possible to filter the message.  I'll test that with this 
message to see whether the MLM passes the message to the list.

Best regards,
-sm