On 10/20/2011 8:55 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Glen" == Glen Zorn <glenz...@gmail.com> writes: > > Glen> On 10/20/2011 3:09 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> >> >> I believe I've addressed all of Alan's comments with the exception of > >> removing the RADIUS diagram from 5.3. > > Glen> Great, so what are we supposed to do now? WGLC was issued on > Glen> draft-ietf-emu-chbind-09. The last call is not complete. > Glen> Shall we just start over? > > Documents are updated to reflect feedback during last calls all the > time. It happens in WGs I chair; it happened with documents for which I > was the AD; I've been asked to do it by ADs and other chairs.
Drivers run red lights all the time, too. > Obviously, sometimes it is done wrong. > > My thinking is that Alan's comments had been outstanding for a while, > seemed fairly obvious and with the exception of the question about > encoding of responses were non-contraversial. Thank you for your authoritative reading of WG consensus. If the problems (and their solutions were so obvious, why were they present in the draft at all? In fact, they become "non-controversial" at the end of last call, not in the middle. > > None of them seemed to require a second last call. > By submitting 10 I've made a version with the changes folded in > available for review. > > What I did is clearly permitted by the process. I could have sworn that the process WRT a WG Draft was that it was changed only by direction of the Chair(s) as a result of the determination of WG consensus, rather than at the whim of the editor. Maybe a different process? > The chairs may of > course decide I made an error and that one of Alan's comments didn't > have sufficient consus. They can ask me to (or do it themselves) > resubmit 09 as 11, ask me to remove some text, or give more specific > guidance. We may also discover that I incorrectly applied Alan's > comment. > > You still had the options you had before. You can review 09 if you like > and send comments on 09. You can reply to Alan's comments and respond to > them. > > You have some additional options now. If you haven't started reviewing > yet you can start with 10. If you'd like you can review the diff > between 10 and 9. You can review 9 and 10 separately if you have a lot > of free time on your hands. You can ignore the whole thing. You get a > chance to see Alan's context in the text. You can better appreciate them > and if you find a problem bring it up. > > If you have trouble finding 09 or a diff between 09 and 10 let me know; > I bet we can find one if we work together. > > > If you have an objection to text in 9, text in 10, changes between the > two bring it up. Objections of this form without an objection to actual > text are not constructive. Apparently I was unclear: the specific text to which I am objecting is -10. All of it. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
