Hi Trevor, <hat="wg chair">
I had no intention to ignore issues being raised. I was rather under the impression they had been addressed via the issue tracker and in the new version of the draft. One purpose of the WGLC is in fact to verify that all issues have been resolved and weed out any remaining problems. We have no intention of "forcing through" a document. And I fully recognise the fact that new revisions of the draft have regrettably been coming rather slow and that this can have contributed to low volume on the mailing-list, waiting for the revised text. Maybe to approach every issue in a structured approach in order to avoid missing any open issues: In my understanding all topics you and others posted have been mapped to issues in the tracker. Are we missing something there? If so or if you see new issues, please re-raise them on the mailing-list and please feel free to post issues in the tracker. We use the tracker to track open issues and to close them when they have been discussed. When you disagree with the closing of an issue it is good to raise your objections when that happens to make sure the WG understands your opinion and concerns and can discuss the problem accordingly. All the best, Tobias (co-chair of websec) On 09/02/14 00:53, Trevor Perrin wrote: > I had ~20 comments on the last draft [1], which were issues I first > brought up in July and which the chairs have apparently decided to > ignore. Brian Smith had several comments. There's still an open > issue in the tracker which I've brought up a few times. > > List volume is low because we've been spent most of the last several > months waiting for a new draft, not because we're out of things to > discuss. > > It would be helpful if the chairs were tracking open issues and > promoting discussion to make sure they're resolved via on-list > consensus, instead of just trying to force a document through. > > > Trevor > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01956.html > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Tobias Gondrom > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08/02/14 15:00, Yoav Nir wrote: >>> On Feb 8, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Trevor Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Thank you Chris, Chris and Ryan. >>>>> >>>>> This is to announce the beginning of a WGLC for this draft. Because a lot >>>>> of the group members are busy preparing for London and getting those >>>>> drafts out by the deadline, we will extend the time allocated for this >>>>> WGLC to three weeks, ending on February 28th. >>>>> >>>>> Please take this almost-final opportunity to review the draft and if you >>>>> spot a problem, send comments to the list. >>>> Hi Yoav, >>>> >>>> You've been trying to rush through a "Last Call" since June. A new >>>> draft appeared hours ago. There were substantive open questions the >>>> last time we discussed this, and there have been substantive changes >>>> in the draft. >>>> >>>> It's going to take time for people to read the new draft, digest the >>>> changes, and discuss. >>>> >>>> Could you please give us this time and stop trying to force this? >>> Hi Trevor. >>> >>> I don't think taking from June till now is "rushing". As you have said, >>> there are substantive changes in the draft, and that is why we have allowed >>> three weeks rather than traditional two for this last call. We (Tobias, >>> myself and the authors) believe that the issue that have been raised have >>> been addressed in this version. If it turns out that there are new issues, >>> on which we haven't yet reached consensus, we will discuss them, and have >>> as many more revisions as necessary. >>> >>> In low-traffic mailing lists such as this one, there are participants who >>> won't spend the time on reading and commenting until last call. In June we >>> had thought that all the issues were addressed, but new ones emerged only >>> when we started the WGLC. So we discussed more, and went through a few more >>> revisions, and here we are. As always in the IETF, nothing leaves the >>> working group without consensus being called. >>> >>> I believe that three weeks is plenty for reading, digesting and discussing. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Yoav >> >> Hi Trevor, >> >> I just wanted to add, that the call for WGLC has not been by decided by >> Yoav alone, but that as WG co-chairs we both discussed the appropriate >> timelines and are in full agreement on this. >> >> And as Paul pointed out by normal IETF standards a 3 week WGLC would >> normally be considered long. >> >> Best regards, Tobias >> >> >> Ps.: btw. if you think the draft still has major flaws or has not >> addressed adequately major flaws that have been pointed out earlier, I >> encourage you to post this now during the WGLC. >> >> _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
