I think it would probably shorten the document by a page, and make it marginally easier to read, but I tend to agree that best is the enemy of good enough here.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Tom Pusateri <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > 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
