On 4Mar 2007, at 9:28 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Attached is the current pre-submission version of the document.
I plan to submit this at approximately midnight PST, and will attempt to address any additional issues (or issues I might have missed, if any arepointed out) raised prior to then.
Remaining issues: 1) Issue "4. Independent publication of documents resulting from IETF process" from Olaf's summary. Olaf proposed no change unless text was contributed. Jari hadvolunteered to submit some text for this (IANA issues, etc.) which I amstill waiting for.
Jari submitted that to the list about 30 minutes ago which means your submission may have crossed yours :-(.
2) There was an apparent contradiction between two paragraphs in the text in Olaf's summary of consensus. Specifically the old sentence:Unsolicited reviews will be shared with the author, including the identity of the reviewer.was contradicted by the newer text in the same section:At minimum, the author of every document shall receive a written summary of the review(s). Reviewer anonymity is discussed in Section 6.
I do not read that as a full contradiction. IMHO section 7 (Nit: in the new document the section numbers have changed) is not working towards providing anonymity but about working towards making the review and the identity of the reviewer public.
To adhere to the newer consensus regarding anonymity, I have removed thefirst sentence that prevented anonymity, and moved the sentence "Unsolicited reviews from parties independent of the author are welcome at any time." up a few paragraphs to where it flowed better. I hope this accurately reflects the consensus of this list.
Yes, in my interpretation of the previous section 6 and the current section 7, it does.
3) There is a normative reference to an Internet Draft dated August 2004 (rfc2223bis). I would propose removing the reference to that draft, andjust referencing RFC 2223. (The RFC Editor will of course update the reference during publication to the most recent RFC at that time.)
Leslie's suggestion that explicitly makes 2223bis a informative ref works for me.
4) Need to add the "IAB Members at the time of this writing". Will do this before submitting.
I hope you are able to merge in Jari's comments before submissions. --Olaf ----------------------------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
