The "normal" expected accepted customary way of responding to comments is replying to the list with something like:
To address the comment <x>, the new document (page#, section, paragraph) says "blah-blah-blah". Or We decided not to make changes requested by comment <x> because of blah-blah-blah. Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On May 14, 2017, at 10:08, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On May 13, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an individual >> response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that together. > > The point is to explain *why* the review was accepted or rejected. i.e. to > have a discussion around the topic. > > From your earlier comment: > >>> So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible, >>> and where we can apply then, to the doc. > > Which items were incorporated? > > Which items were *not* incorporated? Why were they not incorporated? > > There is no need to respond to each item individually. Grouping things > together is fine. > > But when there are questions, they should be answered. When comments are > rejected, there should be an explanation. > > My larger issue with the review process so far is that the existing > implementors haven't reviewed the document. So we have no idea whether or > not it describes the protocol they've implemented, or the choices they've > made. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
