> On Aug 2, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We got some really good review during the IESG last call process. Thanks to
> the IESG members (bcc) who read the document thoroughly and gave so many
> thoughtful comments.
>
> I believe that we have addressed all of the comments that were made during
> the review adequately. However, this hasn't been thoroughly reviewed; we
> should do a thorough review of these changes. In order to facilitate that,
> I've submitted a -14 (on top of last night's -13), so the diffs to look at
> are between -12 and -14, not, e.g., just -13 and -14. You can get the diffs
> here:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12
>
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12>
>
> Note that because I added an applicability section, all of the IESG comments
> about sections after 4 are off by one.
>
> The one remaining nit is that at least two and possibly three of the ADs
> commented that the terminology section has a lot of normative language in it
> and generally talks a lot about things that are really specification, not
> terminology.
>
> I responded to this by saying that we'd discussed this as a group, agreed it
> wasn't great, and decided it was more work to fix than it was worth.
> However, at the moment I actually have a lot of state on this document in my
> head, and I think I could fix this without it being too much work or
> introducing errors. But doing so would impose extra workload at least on
> the authors, and maybe on the working group, to review the changes I make and
> make sure I don't screw something up.
>
> Is there appetite for doing this? I think it would significantly improve
> the document, but I am mindful of the expense.
I could go either way on this. I don’t mind doing another review if others
think this is worthwhile but I also don’t think it’s a problem as is.
Tom
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
