hi terry,
> It strikes me that this is the first time you have read this draft despite
> the several calls to the WG to do so.
this version, yes. read a year or so ago, and it was structurally so
off my map that i did not do more than scan.
> That's not bad exactly... just unexpected.
in one sense, it's what wglc is all about. and this is just not high on
my radar.
> I'm less interested in your abrupt critique and certainly much more
> interested in constructive reviews of which you started below and then
> gave up..
apologies, but the multiple hours needed would not come up on my
priority stack for a long while. i would hope the authors would know
how to be more precise.
as i said privately to the chairs
... that docco is *really* sloppy. i am kinda wondering why no one
else has raised the rather amazing editorial issues. no one
bothered to read it? i admit that i have not read it for a year or
so.
please view my comments as just that. i do not formally object to
the doc being passed to the iesg. imiho, they probably deserve
it. :)
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
