-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- James Seng/Personal wrote (~4 days ago): > > > > have not been adequately addressed (in fact none of my technical > > > > points were addressed at all). > > > > > > Your comments comes after the doc have been moved forward for IESG. > > > Any changes to it will have to wait after their review. > > > > The WG should discuss the comments and they can even decide how they'd > > like to modify the document. But it is best to not issue an updated > > I-D until the AD review comments are back. > > Thanks Erik. Yes, that is what I mean. > > Discussion of the points raised by David can and should continue.
Good, I'm glad we agree. Since you're a coauthor of the requirements draft, is it too much to ask that you actually make some substantive comments, rather than just expressing a vague notion that it might be a good idea to do so? Please reply to my previous post suggesting the changes, saying to what extent you agree or disagree with each of them. - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBO9y6+DkCAxeYt5gVAQHHcgf/bePQ/TlVmAUqTjFz8DyAFcUN2kzijvJv bz0bAX92vYunZo+bLWgzQBTUkEHKC7zdoe6LUOvWHAQcAKwnn0RR3Jn6Vl2eXbMH gsveKzntcXF9/6v9CjgUDW/i/UeuG7G5Mqr9v8c+tk6UkxfKrV4Ql57WHreC766K J5a2eAEBJwfDES4k2zAVPk67o8xZUnErcmVS6sv0aJpGED0Cy4ITRk2eIIw1x9Ym aucRZGzvLP6cTvr7Bhjd7NTbb5ptPMTBgj8iybvTAdhhcMzGKsjcw3nbz0uXHSKu pWxvjxFPbsf56UIIu7ARWjJ3JjHXVCWuYAwZvjPql9a0lRk9vNGstQ== =0kMs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
