[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Target times for MIB Doctor Review
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:32:51AM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> So the suggestion is that we would like to have a target of MIB
> Doctor review to be done within 30 days of the request.
>
> I want to hear from you how to deal with that?
What does this include:
a) The time it takes to find a MIB reviewer
b) The time for the initial MIB review
c) Followup discussion and re-review time
I assume it is a)+b) but I am not really sure. If it is a)+b), then I
think it really matters what the distribution of a) looks like. If 30
days is meant to be just b), then I would say this is fine as a
timeout. However, no review in case of a 30 days timeout is not
really useful. One could easily abuse this mechanism by making your
friend a reviewer of your document, who will basically do nothing
until the timer expires.
For me as an occasional reviewer, it seems that I spend most of the
time on c) rather than b) and typically c) happens with much delay and
rather unpredictably after b) so that in many cases I have swapped out
things completely. So from this perspective, I think it would be nice
to have a deadline by which authors have to followup on MIB reviewer
comments. It is odd that sometimes after a review you wait months for
something to happen again. I know, this might not be the IESG's time
tracking problem to optimize - I am just mentioning here since it has
something to do with the happyness of a MIB reviewer.
Perhaps there should be mechanism where a standards-track document
automatically becomes an informational (or even historic :) document
if the authors do not followup on IESG/AD/... comments withing a given
time period once a document is in the IETF publication machinery.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany