Hi, SM,
On 13/1/21 06:15, S Moonesamy wrote:
[....]
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.
Certainly not. What I meant is that if I failed to respond, I will.
In fact, if I failed to respond, I'd expect Eric's comments to remain
part of his IESG review, and hence discussing his comments would be part
of the process, as usual.
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.
Alice: How long is forever?
White Rabbit: Sometimes, just one second.
-- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
For one reason or another, URLs are seldomly stable. Organizations
change their CMS (breaking URLs), etc., etc.,
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
