On 14/08/14 18:21, Barry Leiba wrote:
It sounds like you're looking for an acknowledgement of the messages. Just
to confirm, we have received this feedback, and are taking time to ensure
the replies are as considered and thoughtful as the DISCUSS points,
especially as many of these points were discussed early on and thought
addressed by the draft already.
Great; thanks, Ryan.
Yes, it's always good to at least send a "we're working on it" message
in response, especially to DISCUSS positions (as those are
specifically asking for discussion).
So we'll take this as "we're working on it, and we'll get back to
y'all when we have a good response," and thanks for confirming that.
Barry
Hi Ryan,
in addition to the recommendation from Barry: please feel free to reply
to the discusses as soon as possible. We are now in IESG review and an
extensive discussion within the WG is not required to deal with
discusses if the issues have been raised and resolved in the WG before.
So e.g. if you think that a discuss has already been addressed during a
previous WG discussion, please feel free to write so to the reviewing AD
(with cc to the WG). And repeat a quick brief of the reasoning for the
benefit of the reviewer who has not been part of the WG discussion before.
Furthermore I would recommend to not wait for any HSTS update
discussions. It is not clear whether they will happen or not at this
stage. So to wait for them may not be fruitful.
In general it would be good to answer questions in the current IESG
review process phase timely and one by one as that will help the ADs to
close the process on the draft in a timely manner. If we wait too long,
some may need to read the draft again just to refresh their memory when
casting their vote to publish.
Just a thought, Tobias (no hat)
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
