On 09/05/2017 20:10, Alan DeKok wrote:
On May 9, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Ignas Bagdonas <[email protected]> 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.
WGLC is for bringing the attention for finalizing the outstanding
issues. If there are too many issues or they are too deep - that is
fine, it is always possible to go back and do another WGLC later if needed.
The version that will go into WGLC is still not published therefore at
this time it is just a speculation whether that particular version will
or will not describe the protocol adequately. We need to wait for the
authors to do their part and then it will be visible.
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.
That is correct. Authors are aware of this and it is under their
decision and responsibility to resolve this.
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.
I agree with the facts and indeed the communication could have been
better, and I understand the negative sentiments from your side. However
it does not seem to be practical to try to escalate this in the rush at
the timescale of days given that it already took half a year. Authors
are aware of this discussion, it is their turn now to produce the new
revision (which by the word of authors should be coming within a few
weeks), and then if the new revision still does not address your
concerns we would need to revisit this discussion again. Your reviews
are definitely appreciated and valuable, it is the following up with
them still has room for improvement.
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.
Authors have the next step to do at this time. Let's wait for the new
revision first.
Ignas
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
