Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of WikiStart


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 20, 2010, 1:47:30 PM (10 years ago)
Author:
mary.ietf.barnes@…
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • WikiStart

    v4 v5  
    2222The process for reviewing documents at Last Call:
    2323
    24  * The Secretary assigns a reviewer, more or less randomly using a round robin order,  within a week of the Last Call announcement – typically on Thursday evenings.
     24 * The Secretary assigns a reviewer using a round robin order based on availability,  within a week of the Last Call announcement – typically on Thursday evenings.
    2525 * We expect the reviewer to be done before the end of Last Call.
    2626 * The reviewer sends the review to the Gen-ART list
     
    3030
    3131 * Secretary checks the IESG agenda one week before the IESG telechat. The agenda is typically finalized Thursday evening PDT, with late agenda items sometimes being added on Friday morning, thus the assignments are out either late Thursday evening or early Friday morning (PDT).
    32  * For documents reviewed at Last Call, a new review is only asked for if the document is revised or issues resolved.
    33  * The Secretary names a reviewer per document, more or less randomly. For documents that have been reviewed before, the same reviewer is kept, if that person is still available.
    34  * Reviewers send their review to the Gen-ART list no later than COB  (i.e., 8 PM CDT) the Tuesday before the telechat (earlier is better!)
     32 * For documents reviewed at Last Call, the same reviewer is assigned and a new review is only asked for if the document is revised or issues resolved.
     33 * The Secretary assigns a reviewer using a round robin order based on availibility for any new document not previously assigned or reviewed.
     34 * Reviewers send their review to the Gen-ART list no later than COB  (i.e., 8 PM EDT) the Tuesday before the telechat (earlier is better!)
    3535 *  Reviews should be copied to authors, responsible ADs and WG chairs, unless the review finds no issues. Also, including a link to the FAQ in the email has proved essential for the recipients of the review in understanding the context.
    3636 * If the AD concludes that the concerns raised by the reviewer warrant blocking the document, the AD will do so.
     
    7474Each review must include a summary statement chosen from or adapted from the following list:
    7575
    76 * This draft is ready for publication as a [type] RFC, where [type] is Informational, Experimental, etc. (In some cases, the review might recommend publication as a different [type] than requested by the author.)
    77 * This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.
    78 * This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.
    79 * This draft has serious issues, described in the review, and needs to be rethought.
    80 * This draft has very fundamental issues, described in the review, and further work is not recommended.
    81 * Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to review this draft.
     76 * This draft is ready for publication as a [type] RFC, where [type] is Informational, Experimental, etc. (In some cases, the review might recommend publication as a different [type] than requested by the author.)
     77 * This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.
     78 * This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.
     79 * This draft has serious issues, described in the review, and needs to be rethought.
     80 * This draft has very fundamental issues, described in the review, and further work is not recommended.
     81 * Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to review this draft.
    8282
    8383The length of a review will vary greatly according to circumstances, and it is acceptable for purely editorial comments to be sent privately if it's obvious that the document will have to be substantially revised anyway. All substantive comments must be included in the public review. Wherever possible, they should be written as suggestions for improvement rather than as simple criticism. Explicit references to prior work and prior IETF discussion should be given.