At the risk of being a pain... The working group asked for publication of this document and over 40 days ago I sent a review that asked for two relatively minor actions.
Can I hope for these to be completed soon? Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Adrian Farrel > Sent: 17 October 2012 04:43 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses > > Hi, > > I've done my usual AD review of your draft prior to issuing IETF last > call and passing the I-D for IESG evaluation. The main purpose of the > review is to catch issues that might come up in later reviews and to > ensure that the document is ready for publication as and RFC. > > I only have a small point that needs to be resolved in a new revision of > the document, so I will put it into "Revised I-D Needed" state in the > data tracker and wait to hear from you. > > But I would also like the document shepherd to make an update to the > write-up as described below. > > As always, all my comments are up for discussion and negotiation. > > Thanks for the work, > Adrian > > === > > The Shepherd write-up says... > > > There is consensus in the WG to proceed with publication. > > Looking at the mailing list, I see no comments positive or negative > during WG last call. What is more, I see no discussion of the I-D > going back four years (at which point I lost the will to search > further). How do you justify there being WG consensus for this document? > > I think this issue can be resolved by a revision to the write-up with > some explanation of the justification for publishing this as a WG > document. I would also like the write-up to explain the purpose of the > document as discussed in the following point. > > --- > > I was also unclear why you want to publish the document at all. I see a > note from Alvaro (extending the WG last call for an extra week) that > says: > > > this document is being published as an Informational RFC for > > completeness purposes...as has been discussed in the mailing list and > > live meetings. > > So I think that gives me the intended purpose: completeness. But I don't > know what that means, and the document doesn't help me at all. > > Furthermore, I couldn't find the discussion of this intention to publish > on the mailing list. > > Based on some conversations with Stewart, I understand that the idea > here is to capture the current state of discussions in the WG so that > they are not lost. But I also assume that the WG has no interest in > pursuing these ideas further. So it would be reasonable to add a > significant note to the Abstract and the Introduction about the > purpose. This would say something along the lines of... > > The idea is to capture the current state of discussions in the WG so > that they are not lost, can be referenced, and might be picked up > again later. The WG currently has no interest in pursuing these ideas > further. It is not intended that this document as currently written > should form the basis of an implementation or deployment. > > With this in mind, my review is considerably lighter than it would be > for a standards track protocol specification, and I think the document > will be fine for advancement. > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
