Hi Dale,
thanks for your feedback. some comment below,
On 2/10/13, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I believe that you are examining this problem from the point of view
of a reviewer (and possible contributor) to a document, rather than
the point of view of a document author. That
On 10 Feb 2013 03:46, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
In any case, if you are doing something incorrect in your review,
presumably people will call your attention to that fact, and explain
how you should change what you are doing and why you should change it.
And on this note, doing
SM,
Many thanks for your feedback.
I will incorporate your suggestions and few other people's comments in a new
version of the document.
Some further discussion on a couple of points that deserve it:
I read draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-03 as I am trying to learn about the IETF.
In Section
Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Also following AD advice.
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 10/02/2013
Reviewer Comment #AB1: Related to Aim and Terminology.
Overall I support the work, but subject to amendments.
The Abstract is
Adrian,
Many thanks for your careful review and thoughts. A couple of follow-ups inline:
In several places, this document is careful to state that the text
represents the personal view of the author (Section 4 Process vs.
Substance, Section 5, Appendix 5). This is fine as far as it goes, but
A couple of points here:
In practice, that depends on the judgment the document author; does
the document author feel that you have made a significant
contribution to the document?
I agree that it is responsibility of owners or authors. In IETF the
I-D may be a WG I-D so the group work
Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 10/02/2013
Reviewer Comment #AB1: I-D Overall Idea and Aim
I support strongly the idea-work but not publication, the draft needs
to be completed (i.e. the aim was not
Notice 4144 has no acknowledgements except for the RFC editor sponsorship. :)
Most I see is common sense, but my view, in my somewhat limited work areas I
have participating in, it doesn't matter if the editor/author doesn't like you.
I guess that would be the exception. I think overall 4144
Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 10/02/2013
Reviewed I-D -03 (latest)
Reviewer Comment #AB2: Rationale for Cross-Area Work
The section 3 explains cross areas but involves the security which the
reviewer
At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to
complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily.
Are we talking about the same IETF?
Seriously, this group as a whole does not tend to shy away from making their
issues
Hi Jari,
At 02:57 10-02-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
Admittedly, the document was written from the perspective of the
IETF managers (ADs, WG chairs) but comments from you and Brian have
led me to understand better that we need to include more about the
participant aspect as well.
It's difficult
Hi Dave,
At 01:47 10-02-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
And on this note, doing something wrong and being corrected is
always a better choice than not doing something.
Agreed.
Regards,
-sm
On 2/10/13, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to
complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily.
Are we talking about the same IETF?
Yes, IETF considers all
13 matches
Mail list logo
