On Sep 8, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > 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'll happily admit to not having responded to the WGLC because I didn't read the document… I have placed it on my ToRead pile, but it will take some time to propagate up the stack… W > 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 > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
