if you could kick out a new version we can re-read and push this in the right direction.
thanks for the pokery so far though! :) On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Osterweil, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the comments Wes! > > On May 12, 2014, at 4:54 PM, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the authors need to look at this >> http://iepg.org/2014-03-02-ietf89/ietf89_iepg_jmauch.pdf and make some >> updates to section 7. Doesn’t really seem like all of those problems are >> historical. > > Added that citation and some text, thanks! > >> It would be extremely helpful to have a summary or conclusion section that >> makes it clearer which problems are still in need of a solution, >> especially if the goal is to have IETF provide all or part of that >> solution. I think that it is useful to categorize the problems into things >> that are essentially old, solved problems and therefore used as FUD >> objections vs things that are still known issues, but a clearer call to >> action to resolve the still outstanding issues would make this draft much >> stronger. > > > Added, thanks! > >> Draft also needs text in the security considerations section. > > Added, thanks! > >> Lastly, why is this a standards-track document and not informational? > > Fixed! > > Eric > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
