On 6/28/18 18:16, Alan DeKok wrote: > >> On Jun 28, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Joe Clarke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I would ask that people like Alan (that have been very vocal) make sure >> that any points have been addressed and if specific changes require more >> thorough explanation. > > I would prefer that the document approach publication quality before doing > significantly more work. > > Despite many, many, reviews and both editorial and technical feedback, the > new text in the document isn't much better than text from 3 years ago. It's > still vague, not prescriptive, doesn't use normative text, etc. > > I've done do a quick check recently, and there are still major issues with > the document. So there isn't much point in doing more detailed reviews. > Having done that lots, I'm disinclined to do it again.
Thanks, Alan. I do want it to get closer to publication quality, and now that the authors are engaging more actively, I want the WG to help them get there. Specific to the normative language, I have a few questions here, especially with the security concerns. I'll comment on Douglas' email, and I would appreciate your input on my comments. Broadly, given that we want an informational draft that describes the protocol as it is implemented today, I feel there should be a balance struck with respect to normative language so that we don't make existing clients "out of spec." Joe > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
