On 5/16/17, 3:27 PM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>The lack of interactivity was more our fault than any one else's, we
>took Alan¹s comments and incorporated them into the version we uploaded in
>Feb.
>
>What we should have done was collate Alan¹s comments to promote
>discussion. We¹re attempting to rectify than that now:
>
>1) We put Alan¹s comments on v5 put on a single mail list a few days ago
Doug, IMHO it is less critical to put collated Alan’s comments on the list.
We’ve all already seen Alan’s comments, so collating them into a single mail
would be of a marginal usefulness.
What the public needs is *your answers to each of those comments* being put on
the list. As I said before: “foreach (comment): comment -> change in the draft
text” or “comment -> reasons not to address”.
>2) We are going to give an initial response ASAP (will take a few days)
That would be fine, IMHO.
My concern (and displeasure) is that in the past few days we’ve seen plenty of
emails on this subject, but nothing along the lines of the above – which IMHO
is the only thing that would actually matter (everything else is just waste of
bandwidth).
>3) More discussions will ensure, and other comments on the doc may be
>generated
>4) We will hopefully steer towards a consensus that will feed into v7.
Yes and yes.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
