>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Schaad <[email protected]> writes:
Jim> Sam, EXTREME IRRITATION
Jim> I believe that I have provided comments on a number of
Jim> documents. To the best of my knowledge many of these comments
Jim> are still outstanding and have not had significant changes in
Jim> documents resulting from them. This despite the fact that
Jim> there was a long discussion between the two of us on
Jim> architecture document changes that needed to be made shortly
Jim> after the spring face-to-face meeting.
Jim> Is it worth it for me to continue reviewing documents if I
Jim> never seem to see updates resulting from them.
Hi, Jim.
I want to confirm the understanding.
I think I've addressed your comments on draft-ietf-gss-eap to the best
of my ability.
If I have not, I'm really sorry and I'd like to deal with it.
I think that the architecture document has not been updated
significantly at all since you gave your comments, and I think that
draft-ietf-gss-eap-naming has not been updated since you gave your
comments.
First, if you or anyone else wants commit access to the architecture
document, my personal opinion is that more help would be great. I'd
even love to find that I was no longer involved in the architecture
document as an editor. If I remain involved, I do commit to addressing
your comments in the next major update and believe your review has been
incredibly valuable. I've explained why I think the specs are a higher
priority than the architecture document. I'd be happy to have an
off-list discussion if you think that's the wrong prioritization.
As I mentioned, I do plan on addressing draft-ietf-gss-eap-naming
comments in the next month and think draft-ietf-aaa-saml comments need
to be addressed in that time frame too.
Your comments have been very valuable and I want to do what it takes to
make you happy.
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
