On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:32 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I think that the majority of the major DISCUSS (Alissa, Eric, and Rob) and general feedback/comments have been addressed by the change in status/removal of the pseudo-2119 language. However, the document will (of course) undergo another full IESG Eval, and so all of the ADs will have another opportunity to review the document and confirm/double-check that their comments and concerns have been fully addressed... In particular, Erik had a DISCUSSS unrelated to the Informational/BCP question, and so I've asked him to work with the author to ensure that his comments have been fully addressed -- it would be stupid to do another IETF Eval which results in the same DISCUSS position... I believe that this document is getting more review than most - it is having 2 WGLCs, 2 IETF LCs, and 2 IESG Evals; if comments are not addressed when I take to the the second eval, I expect my co-ADs to point out (loudly!) that their comments are still open... W > > > 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 > > > > -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
