Hi, On 16th July, 2025, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> may have written:
> Hi Yingzhen, rtgwg-chairs, and reviewers of the model. > > > On Jul 15, 2025, at 6:16 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> I didn't see any response on the rtgwg mailing list to previous reviews, >> although I can see some changes were made as suggested. I'd like to make >> sure all review comments have been addressed, such as: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/MPfIUBMOgPjj6I5ORTsvfzvKKzs/ >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/En7HjlIGye0ljf42gCZChOEBO3U/ >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Sw-xFfzmoxshy4nx5utsiRvAXts/ > > Most of the review comments were captured as issues in our GitHub tracker. I have been asked to do a RTGDir review of the latest version of this document, and I will. But let me say that I am unimpressed with this response! Of course, using github (or any issue tracker) to make sure that all points are captured and addressed is a fine thing. But it doesn't seem acceptable to me to not respond to the review, not send any pointers to the specific issues the review raised as tracked in github, and to simply state: > To answer your question, we beleive we have addressed all the comments we > received. At the same time, if > the previous reviewers believe we have missed anything, we are happy to > address them I know it is a lot of work to address reviewers' comments, and I'm sure it is frustrating to have people coming in and saying that your document needs more work, but Directorate Reviewers do their reviews for your benefit and for the benefit of the IETF. It behoves you to respond to any and every review properly, by email, on the list. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
