On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:24 PM, McPherson, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. I will get on this in the next 1-2 days. Sorry for the delay, no need to add pens. ;) Eric
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
