On May 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmg...@cisco.com> wrote: > > So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible, > and where we can apply then, to the doc. > > Would you have a preferred method that we responded?
I told you my preferred method. Others have agreed that it's the preferred method. If you're reading messages on this list, that question has already been answered. You've been given detailed reviews of the draft. Instead of responding to the reviews, you've issued a new revision. Then, you want the reviewers to verify that the new draft addresses their concerns. That's not the right approach.. The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG consensus. i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for publication. If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the chairs replace you with authors who will. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
