James, At 10:32 AM 8/31/2002 +0800, James Seng wrote: >I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been working with >the ADs to address these issues.
There seems to be a basic disparity of view about IETF process, here. Comments in a working group forum are not simply one-way input for a design team to take in and privately decide whether it wishes to incorporate. Comments are for public discussion, review, and acceptance or rejection. >We have several emails discussion on the drafts. These concerns were posted two months ago and no one, on that long list of folks working diligently on this specification, has publicly responded to the details of those concerns. If I am incorrect please point to the place in the working group archive that shows otherwise. >The feeling I get from these discussion is that IESG is trying its best to >make sure the document got things right, rather then finding faults with >the draft. James, presumably you are not directing the "rather than" comment at me. If you were directing it at me, I would be very confused, since I made a point of submitting extensive text that attempts to correct the concerns I have raised. Please forgive my sensitivity on this matter, but the responses from chairs and authors have been problematic, since you and they are preferring to dismiss these concerns, rather than respond to them. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
