On May 16, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't see how reviews (which were ignored) can be construed as "no >> evidence" that the authors were ignoring reviews. >> >> Which was my point. If document authors issue new revs irrespective of >> what the WG suggests, the chairs should replace the authors with ones who >> work towards WG consensus. > > No-one has seen the -07 revision yet, therefore it seems to be too early to > make judgement whether comments and suggestions were or were not addressed. > Authors have promised to address the raised comments discussing them on the > list and responding to previous reviews.
My comments (again) were that there was a history of ignoring the reviews. At the time I made that comment, it was true. I find it troubling to see a response saying there's "no evidence" of such a problem. >> The alternative is to accept a draft as a WG document, and then to allow >> the authors to do pretty much whatever they want, and then to rubber-stamp >> the final document as an RFC. > > That is not how the IETF works. I fail to see what else could be commented > here. I'm saying until I complained, that *was* largely the process being used in this WG. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
