On 12/1/21 21:35, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Fernando,
[I moved the thread to ietf@xxxxxxxx]
At 12:31 PM 01-01-2021, Fernando Gont wrote:
There was an *error* in how the metadata for the document was set. The
track of the document had always been "Informational".
There is an assumption that the "verifications" [1] would catch such an
error.
I guess that at the end of the day, we are all mere mortals, and can
always err/fail. Fortunately, when that happens, somebody else notices
the problem, and we can fix it.
I thought we had responded to all, but since we authors are mere
mortals, it could also be the case that we missed some. I will review
all received comments (and, in particular, any by Eric) and respond if
necessary.
That said, the document is being IETF LC'ed (rather than published by
the RFC-Ed), so we're just in time to address anything that we may
have missed before.
Are the authors of the opinion that it is unnecessary to respond to the
comments which were received?
I'd have assumed that my comment above already answered this one, before
you even asked. (i.e., I noted "I thought we had responded to all...").
I normally respond to all comments, even if just to Ack. Again, we're
all mere mortals. At times we can unintentionally err or fail. When/if
we do, a short email is usually more than enough to trigger the fault
recovery process (e.g., responding to an email that, for some reason, we
failed to respond).
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
