On 3/3/15, 10:03 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>To be clear, these comments arrived during IETF last call and were well >circulated. >My Discuss is that the comments were not addressed in the normal way of >IETF >review comments. However, I offered to adopt the comments as my own and >let you >discuss them with me if you prefer. > >RFC 7282 provides some hints on addressing comments and, as Joel has >noted, >addressing comments does not necessarily imply changing the document. Yep, understood. >I am sure, however, that if none of the currently listed document authors >has >the bandwidth to run through this process (which is perfectly fine, and >reflects >the fact that the IETF is not the only activity for many of us), the WG >chairs >will find it simple to appoint an additional editor to run through the >final >piece of the process. So the statement (which I choose to not interpret >as a >threat :-) that this document might never see the RFC Editor, is just >nonsense. It was most certainly NOT a ³threat² - whatever that would mean as I don¹t really have an alternative go forward plan, the comments need to be addressed. It was more an indication that someone finding the cycles to dig back into this and circulate received comments with the WG for reconsideration. It was simply an indication to the folks involved that the timelines conveyed yesterday weren¹t realistic for an array of reasons ‹ and perhaps a nudge to the current pen holder to allocate some cycles for this as appropriate. Thanks Adrian, -danny _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
