On May 9, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.i...@gmail.com> wrote:, > > > Based on the information received from authors while tracking the progress of > the draft, they intend to publish a revised version covering the comments > received during the previous WGLC timeframe.
I made no statements about my comments and their inclusion in the draft. But since you brought it up, I think the document is still nowhere near ready for publication. Many comments have been addressed, but many have not been addressed. I question the utility of having a WGLC when the draft *still* doesn't adequately describe the protocol. > WG chairs are not for waving a stick at the WG in trying to tell what a > document needs to do to progress. The draft must document the protocol. > While the WG document is formally owned by the WG, it is for the authors to > do the actual text editing work and track and credit the changes in the text. I find it surprising that text was copied without attribution. This just shouldn't happen. > Please initiate a discussion with authors, ideally on the list, on how your > comments were or were not resolved. As the list archive shows, I've done that. It also shows little in the way of responses. The last response to my review was "Many thanks Alan for the thorough review. We¹ll collate all your comments and respond shortly." That was six months ago, and there has been no further response. Given the extensive nature of my reviews, I would suggest it's not *my* responsibility to double-check each rev of the document to see if my comments are addressed. What I've seen in other WGs is that the authors respond to comments with clarifications, suggested replacement text, etc. That pretty much hasn't happened here. > Quite many of past instances of such discussions were happening before, and > they eventually have moved the document forward. Continuing with that > discussion would be the right approach to take. That's what I'm asking for. That's not what's happening. Instead, new revs of the draft come out, with minimal interaction with the WG. > Looking further, there will be a new WG last call coming out after the > revised version is posted. Usual WG LC discussion and commenting procedures > will be followed. I would suggest that it's too early to have a WGLC, as the authors simply haven't responded to reviews of the draft. i.e. I have no idea what state the draft is in. After doing multiple detailed reviews that largely get ignored, I'm not inclined to do more. It's up to the authors to demonstrate that the comments have been addressed. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
