I agree that there were no technical comments but the summary states 'no comments'. Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a proposal is made I hear the complexity argument used against it. Everything we do is complex. Computers are complex. Committee process usually increases complexity somewhat. If an argument can always be used what is the discrimination power? > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:11 AM > To: John C Klensin > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Pekka Savola; iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X > (ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC > > I saw almost no technical comments on the documents. Most of > the last call comments I saw were on a side track about > copyright issues. > > The one somewhat technical comment that I logged, from Tom > Yu, didn't result in any changes but was certainly > influential on me in agreeing to the documents being > reclassified from standards track to Experimental. This could > have been acknowledged in the writeup, I guess. > > Brian > > On 2007-03-13 14:04, John C Klensin wrote: > > > > --On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 07:47 +0200 Pekka Savola > > <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote: > >>> A URL of this Internet-Draft is: > >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt > >> ... > >>> Working Group Summary > >>> > >>> This document set was not produced by an IETF working > group, but by > >>> an individual. IETF Last Call produced no comments, and > solicited > >>> reviewers were basically positive. > >> This writeup was not updated or comments were not duly > processed. I > >> see 14 Last Call comments (retaining the subject > >> line) on ietf@xxxxxxxxx, as well as 12 comments under the > >> 'Protest: Complexity running rampant' thread. > > > > Agreed... I was about to send a similar note when I saw this one. > > I would add that few of the 14 comments were really positive about > > this specification. In addition, several of the comments on both > > threads asked for specific clarification of the need to > introduce the > > complexities inherent in an additional syntax for accomplishing the > > underlying functionality. The document has not been modified to > > reflect those concerns. > > > > If the IESG is going to claim a silent majority in favor of > approving > > this document, so be it. But to claim that there were no Last Call > > comments and that those that were solicited were > > positive is deeply problematic. It even leads one to wonder > > whether the IESG has ignored critical comments in other > cases, but I > > trust that has not occurred. > > > > john > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf