"Paul Hoffman" <[email protected]> writes: > On 8 Mar 2017, at 6:35, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> 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.
My interpretation is that my technical points are covered by "this was already discussed", and that Stephen was inquiring about the editorial/nits items (the "details below"). Dale _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
