On May 9, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Ignas Bagdonas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I've already brought attention to issues. From my cursory reading of the draft, many haven't been addressed. WGLC is also a signal that a draft is close to being ready for publication. I don't think we're anywhere near a WGLC for this draft. > 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. Using text without attribute is the problem. Insinuating that I'm trying to "rush" an escalation is just not appropriate. Especially because the "timescale of days" is something I never mentioned. > 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), If only there was a public mailing list where people could discuss these issues... >> 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. It's also possible to respond publicly to my review. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
