Hi, I think it would be good to first make sure that we have GitHub issues or pull requests for the remaining EAP-TLS issues.
https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13 The more I work with GitHub in IETF, the more I like it, both as an author or commenting on documents. It forces comments to be much more concrete, it makes sure that no issues are forgotten, and it makes it clearer why changes was made and the discussion behind it. Maybe the EMU WG should discuss and formalize a bit on how to work with GitHub at IETF 111. Cheers, John From: Emu <[email protected]> on behalf of Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 11 June 2021 at 20:25 To: Alan DeKok <[email protected]> Cc: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>, Mohit Sethi M <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Emu] I-D Action: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-16.txt Hi Folks, I realize that there is frustration with the current document and process. I ask that we all focus on finishing off the current document so that we can move it forward. This does require that we consider the issues on the table. I think we are close to the finish line. I am asking the authors to help work through the final issues. Please continue to remain professional in your discussions on the list. Thanks, Joe On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 10:33 AM Alan DeKok <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Jun 11, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Mohit Sethi M <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I find it odd that you claim your suggestions have been ignored or rejected. So -16 does address my review from May 6? Could you please go through my review of today, and point out in -16 where each of my comments was addressed? As a reminder, many of those comments go back to my earlier review of -13 on March 13. So we now have -14, -15, and -16 which (so far as I can tell) don't address substantial portions of the reviews. > We have created many issues on github > (https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+Alan<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=6242a48c-3dd99d89-6242e417-86d2114eab2f-17c457b5f780f34b&q=1&e=f27361e9-1243-4ef0-b2dc-e81a4ff8946d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Femu-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13%2Fissues%3Fq%3Dis%253Aissue%2Bis%253Aclosed%2BAlan>) > and submitted many pull requests addressing your comments > (https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/pulls?q=is%3Apr+Alan+is%3Aclosed<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=2ea35929-7138602c-2ea319b2-86d2114eab2f-b9e622cabe80ccc1&q=1&e=f27361e9-1243-4ef0-b2dc-e81a4ff8946d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Femu-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13%2Fpulls%3Fq%3Dis%253Apr%2BAlan%2Bis%253Aclosed>). > > When I merged this PR in the morning: > https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/pull/71<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8f90a00d-d00b9908-8f90e096-86d2114eab2f-0e4aca5ebf1d50d0&q=1&e=f27361e9-1243-4ef0-b2dc-e81a4ff8946d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Femu-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13%2Fpull%2F71>, > it looked like all of your comments had been addressed in the PR. Joe (the > other co-chair) had approved this PR? I had sent a review of -13 on March 3. And another one May 6. And another today. The second and third reviews were largely copied from the first one. And contained issues which (so far as I can tell) have not been addressed, much less discussed. These issues do not appear to be addressed in that PR. > As authors of a working group document of a voluntary standards organization, > we have been doing voluntary service over the last several years. We started > working on this document in 2018 > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13). You have > been helping us with the document since the beginning. So thank you for your > voluntary service as well. While it is not mandatory, helping us with github > issues/PRs related to your reviews can help us ensure that your comments are > not inadvertently left unaddressed; and that this community effort moves > forward faster. I'm asking that my reviews be discussed and/or addressed, by the authors, in the WG. I didn't expect to get that particular response. It is distinctly unusual. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
