At Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:35:04 -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > Cullen, > > Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your > DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I > appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English > language is poor (they are both probably true), but could you explain > how one of your most recent DISCUSSes: > > "Cullen Jennings: > > Discuss [2008-03-05]: > There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes for > SRTP, so I'm glad to see a document that covers this topic > for MIKEY. For that reason, I think it's really important > to get this right. It looks to me like some of the issues > EKR raises need to be fixed in order to achieve that." > > does not fit into the DISCUSS non-criteria? > > "Unfiltered external party reviews. While an AD is welcome to consult > with external parties, the AD is expected to evaluate, to understand and > to concur with issues raised by external parties. Blindly > cut-and-pasting an external party review into a DISCUSS is inappropriate > if the AD is unable to defend or substantiate the issues raised in the > review." > > You chose to not even cut-and-paste the comments. Doesn't this fall into the category of "evaluate and concur"? > I also wonder which of the DISCUSS criteria fit to advance that specific > document to an informational RFC. Are we to guess which of the "the > issues EKR raises" the authors need to fix? If only some other area director had excerpted my review and identified the sections that he felt most clearly needed correction. Oh, wait, Sam did. -Ekr _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf