Hi Joe & opsawg,
>>> 2) Reactivity of the Authors. >>> >>> As far as I know, we have responded to most posts regarding the content of >>> the document, with point-by-point replies, >> >> No. >> >> See the list archives, especially May 2017. There are multiple people >> suggesting that you have *not* done this, and that you *should* do this. > > I for one have asked for a summary of changes when I did my last review. > I did not see it. There was a subsequent revision that did seem to > absorb my comments, but there wasn't a response to me email. Typically, > when authors receive feedback, they respond in line to either ack or > discuss points (typos notwithstanding). We're still going through a year's worth of archive to locate WG comments and link them to changes. Currently the focus is on security section as that one was the most contentious, but the goal is to get this information out in the open. Going forward, we've done bad and we're learning+adjusting based on all feedback. > >> >> See line-by-line reviews done by me, which were generally ignored. Despite >> that, I did *multiple* such reviews, until such time as it became clear that >> such reviews were entirely unproductive. >> >>> but there has been, for various logistic reasons, long delays in submitting >>> the resulting new documents. Hopefully this has been addresses in last >>> versions and we will continue with more rapid uploads until process >>> completes one way or other. >> >> The issue isn't rapid uploads. The issue is engagement. It's not >> productive to ignore the messages on the mailing list for 6 months, and then >> to issue a new release saying "we fixed stuff". > > Spot on. One needs to engage. I am pleased with the authors' attempts > to do better these past couple of weeks. I want to see this momentum > continue. We have the next e-mail for section 9 changes almost ready and we're taking care to be both watching and responding on the mailing list. > >>> 3) Change Tracking >>> >>> The uploads have generally had extensive changes relating to comments >>> (which should generally have been summarized by previous email responses to >>> comments). >> >> Which I admit did happen sometimes, but not nearly as often as it should >> have. Again, see mailing list archives from May 2017. I'm not the only >> person who holds this opinion. I'm just the main one pushing the point. >> >>> Because of this, unless the updates have been for specific purposes (such >>> as the recent update of the security section) then I would leave the >>> changes to the diff tool which works pretty effectively. >> >> The diff tool lets us know what changed in the document. It doesn't let us >> know if those changes addressed issues raise on the mailing list. >> >> To summarize: >> >> * we have no idea if this revision of the document addresses multiple WG >> reviews >> >> * we have no idea if the document even describes TACACS+ as currently >> implemented >> >> As such, it should not be put into working group last call, or much less >> published until such time as those issues are addressed. > > I'm not sure what line-item changes are still outstanding. Authors, I'm > sure you could look back at your revisions and spot anything that needs > to be addressed here. We're in the process of both linking changes to where they were suggested from while checking that we haven't missed any. > > I will be submitting an individual review of the new security > requirements soon, and I would like to see this renewed sense of > engagement on the list. You can start with e-mail I've already sent that comes with commentary of what we changed and for what reason. There's going to be few more coming in to spare you from trying to diff all by yourself and spend time thinking about "why" something changed. KR, Andrej. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
