Agreed, we’re working on providing that for each of Alan’s comments made
for v5, and after suitable discussion and agreement, can get to next
version.

On 14/05/2017 15:40, "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to