Hi Fernando,
At 09:46 PM 12-01-2021, Fernando Gont wrote:
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).
I have my share of mistakes in the IETF and
outside the IETF. However, whether there was a
mistake on your side or my side is not the main
point of interest. I was interested in reading
the response of the working group on those points
after going through the relevant RFCs and the
draft. My reading of your reply is that a
response to the comments from Éric is
unnecessary. I suggest going for "Informational"
so as to keep the effort to a minimum.
The following comment is unrelated to the
draft. RFC 7772 has two URIs in Section 3. The
first URI requires a Google account to access the
content. The second URI is redirected to a site about "
white-glove managed cloud services". The
guidance for RFCs are for URIs to be stable; that is not the case.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
