[Iccrg] Procedure for obtaining ICCRG reviews

[Michael Welzl]

> As you probably know, I did already contribute to that document Michael.

Yes I know, but....

> > I don't want to get into a discussion
> > of safety criteria here when this was/is already done elsewhere.
> 
> I guess my real point was to flag up that reviewers are going to have  
> to make a decision between, say, recommendation 1 (safe to deploy)  
> and recommendation 2a (safe in controlled environments).  Its not  

... it's just that I just hoped that the document sufficiently
deals with all the issues related to these categories as it
also defines them.

Assuming that it does, I thought that we don't need to discuss
such details anymore when we're deciding on the process.

So let me take another look at the document: recommendation
"Experimental 1" is only possible if guidelines 1, 3, 4, 8
are fulfilled.

It's obvious to default to "Experimental 2a" or 2b otherwise;
while Quick-Start is a nice example of a 2a-but-not-2b case,
I'm not sure how to derive a guideline for a reviewer that
would make it easier to distinguish between these two cases.

As for recommendation "Informational", that would be used for
a mechanism that is considered dangerous to use on the Internet,
i.e. not at all fulfilling the guidelines, but still of enough
interest to the community to justify publishing it as Informational
in the opinion of the reviewer.


> clear to me (if I put my reviewers hat on for a moment) how to make  
> that decision in a consistent way - perhaps the cautious thing is  
> simply to default to 2a if an algorithm passes basic tests.   ID  
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04.txt deals with general principles but  
> these still need to be turned into practice. Worth discussing on the  
> iccrg surely ?

Hmm... I honestly think that these general principles are as good
as it gets - I don't see how we could reasonably agree on more
practical, detailed guidelines that talk about things like
timeout thresholds etc, like you mention.

I think that it's general principles + common sense (which will
be quite subjective, but this will be okay because we consider
you an expert  :)  )

Cheers,
Michael