Hi Alan, So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an individual response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that together.
On 13/05/2017 12:59, "Alan DeKok" <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: >On May 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmg...@cisco.com> >wrote: >> >> So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible, >> and where we can apply then, to the doc. >> >> Would you have a preferred method that we responded? > > I told you my preferred method. Others have agreed that it's the >preferred method. > > If you're reading messages on this list, that question has already been >answered. > > You've been given detailed reviews of the draft. Instead of responding >to the reviews, you've issued a new revision. Then, you want the >reviewers to verify that the new draft addresses their concerns. > > That's not the right approach.. > > The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG consensus. >i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for publication. > > If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the chairs >replace you with authors who will. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
