Fundamentally, no, it is NOT normalized. It is the reviewers judgment
of the importance.
I try to use a measure that says that if I were an AD, I would think
this was blocking before I mark things as Major. But that is just me.
And is still a judgment call.
And, in case it got lost in the shuffle, remember that no gen-art
comment is blocking unless the IETF Chair decides it is. Sometimes, he
takes reviewer majors and makes them no-obj, and sometimes he takes
reviewer minor and makes them discuss. He is the one who decides, not
the reviewer.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped)
So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
What is the criterion for major issue?
I'd not have thought that the issues below (which do deserve
a response) would be such a big deal. I do get that various
collections of IETFers will disagree about such, but I'd hope
that gen-art would/could normalise it's opinion, and if this
is the result, I'm surprised.
Thanks,
S.
On 29/03/16 22:00, Roni Even wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2016-3-28
IETF LC End Date: 2016-4-9
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track
RFC.
Major issues:
I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not informational
since the registration requirements are specification required. (RFC5246)
I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
