Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I
can.
Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is
not to continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor
wording issues, and (b) find show stoppers. In several cases you have
made some good suggestions, but since they fall in the grey area
between trivial and critical we are going to have to side-step them
for now. We apologize for this, and wish we had gotten them before we
went into Last Call, but we are also trying to get the document out
sooner rather than later, and no project ever gets to the point where
all parties consider it perfect.
I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle IETF LC comments.
This approach could be understandable for issues which have already been
discussed at the WG (and no significant new perspective is brought up in
the IETF LC).
I believe that that's what he meant.
> A pointer to an issue tracker (if any) might help if the
issues have already been discussed..
The issue tracker for the DKIM WG is at:
https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=%20Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format='%20%20%20%3Cb%3E%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2FTicket%2FDisplay.html%3Fid%3D__id__%22%3E__id__%3C%2Fa%3E%3C%2Fb%3E%2FTITLE%3A%23'%2C%0A'%3Cb%3E%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2FTicket%2FDisplay.html%3Fid%3D__id__%22%3E__Subject__%3C%2Fa%3E%3C%2Fb%3E%2FTITLE%3ASubject'%2C%0A'__Status__'%2C%0A'__QueueName__'%2C%0A'__OwnerName__'%2C%0A'__Priority__'%2C%0A'__NEWLINE__'%2C%0A''%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__Requestors__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__CreatedRelative__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__ToldRelative__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__LastUpdatedRelative__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__TimeLeft__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'
S.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf