[Members] Reviewing Documents.

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Nov 19 11:04:36 CST 2008


Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue Nov 11 11:44:25 2008, Remko Tron�on wrote:
>> Although
>> it is one of these hip features for the youngsters these days,
> 
> Great. Before I was just grumpy. Now I'm feeling old, too. :-/
> 
>> I can't give any valuable (i.e. non-theoretical) feedback on this, but
>> I agree that these are XEPs that require explicit support from the
>> implementors. I guess it's the council job to judge whether it is safe
>> to advance this to draft without support, and if not, poke
>> implementors to give their feedback or wait until there are enough
>> implementations around.
>>
>>
> That's true. But it's not a decision we need to worry about if we're
> getting the feedback.
> 
> 
>> I always thought 'last call' meant 'last chance to complain about the
>> spec'. I didn't realize council was waiting on positive feedback as
>> well, and that, when in doubt, they asked implementors themselves.
>> I'll dig up my '+1' mail template, and make use of it for the next
>> last calls.
> 
> It's not quite what they're for... Our specifications aren't set in
> stone, so changes can be made at any time, albeit we prefer doing
> changes as early as possible, and major changes are much, much harder
> once a XEP goes to Draft.
> 
> But a Last Call is designed to get answers to questions, not merely a +1:
> 
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack
> or to clarify an existing protocol?
> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and
> requirements?
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why
> not?
> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
> 
> The main reason I personally prefer some response to no response at all
> is to judge the general nature of the answers to (3) above -
> distinguishing silence-is-assent from silence-is-apathy is very hard
> indeed.
> 
> In the case of XEP-0220, I'm really after the answers to (5) above.

I'm in the RAI Area meeting at the IETF right now and I think that what
Dave is suggesting is something like the GEN-ART review process:

http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html

http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

There's some debate about whether those are deeply valuable in the IETF,
but in my experience they have been helpful.

Peter

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



More information about the Members mailing list