On 8 Mar 2017, at 6:35, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Dale for the detailed review and the discussion.
I've had a read through the resulting thread and don't
see anything that wasn't discussed in the WG that needs
a major change (please do yell if I've missed something),
so I'll leave this on the March 16th IESG telechat for
IESG evaluation. (In part to try get this document done
before I'm finished as an AD so we can cleanly close the
dane WG:-)
That said, I've not seen a response from the authors to
the details below, and it'd be good to see that, so
authors, please do reply to this and make any editorial
changes needed. If you can do have those changes done
by the end of Friday (or close-to) that'd be great so
it's not changing while the IESG are reading it.
We have read the thread and see that Dale's concerns were met by Paul's
"this was already discussed". We haven't see any other messages since
the publication that would require a -16, but let's see what the IESG
discussion teases out.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
