Subject: [RTG-DIR] The rtg-dir on the net?

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:22:22 +0200

All,

I wonder if it would be a good idea to use the same input tool for
rtg-dir reviews as we have e.g. for shepherd write-ups.

I.e. a template on the IETF web that you can access, read, edit and save
from a web-browser if you are the reviewer. Readable by anyone else.

Ideally I guess it the review should be directly accessible from the
document page in the data-tracker, but at least as a start we could
at least keep them off the rtg-dir page.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 06:35:53 -0400

I strongly prefer to do my directorate reviews (and other reviews) in 
email rather than web forms.  I understand that there are some 
advantages to using tooling for information management.
Note that in practice the shepherd tool means that there is an extra 
step in the process.   You prepare the writeup, and then you have to 
enter it into the tool.  And mistakes happen at that point.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:40:49 +0200

Joel,

no there is no extra step - you can do the shepherd write-up in a
tool that is extremely similar to the editor I have for e.g.
Thunderbird. And you don't have to complete it in one go, just
save the temporary version it will not be active until you do
the final submit.

One benefit is that I only have to keep one version, that I can
point people to if I want to ask questions or have feed-back.

/Loa

--

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 06:44:48 -0400

I find editing on the web form much harder, even if in detail it is 
similar to other interfaces.
And I find the email interface for reviews much easier to work with. The 
interaction between off-line and on-line processes is much cleaner and 
easier to tune to any particular reviewers preferences.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Several different review teams I am on have had this debate, and 
while it is worth having here again, it is worth noting that it has come 
out in favor of email muultiple times.

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:17:02 -0400

> no there is no extra step - you can do the shepherd write-up in a tool
that is
> extremely similar to the editor I have for e.g.
> Thunderbird. And you don't have to complete it in one go, just save the
> temporary version it will not be active until you do the final submit.
> 
> One benefit is that I only have to keep one version, that I can point
people to
> if I want to ask questions or have feed-back.

It doesn't matter much, to me, whether I edit in a separate tool then
copy/paste into a web form, or into an email. They're both about the same
amount of work. If a web form would make things easier to track, I'm fine
with that.

:-)

Russ