----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "saag" <saag@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:36 PM > On 8/18/2014 2:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 18/08/14 22:18, Stephen Kent wrote: > >> short of re-writing it for him, I don't > >> see how to fix this mess. > > > > I think that's going too far and is disrespectful > > to Viktor and to those others who have expressed > > support for the document. > > Really, Stephen, > > Please stop finding ways to discount comments from those of us with > serious criticisms of the draft. > > That's especially egregious > > given that you haven't even bothered to compare > > -03 to the earlier on-list discussion. > > This is a prime example of the problem in your perspective. > > An author should provide detailed responses, to detailed comments. > > In the current case, the author has repeatedly failed to do that. > Instead, we are faced with the rest of us having to guess what changes > might pertain to our comments. > > The kind of "check the latest draft" review that is appropriate for the > community is one that comes /after/ detailed discussion, debate and > resolution of detailed comments. Something that the IETF is good at doing - in a Working Group, with WG Chairs to moderate the discussion, a separate mailing list for the interested parties, editors to incorporate the changes that have consensus and so on. Some Areas would have spun up a WG and chaired it by now to help get this I-D to progress. Perhaps the thinking was that this would be a simple, non-contentious I-D which would rapidly achieve support to advance, but that is not so, or at least, not any more. We have the processes but are not, IMO, using them to our best advantage. Tom Petch > This predecessor activity -- which comprises acknowledging points of > agreement and engaging in detailed, constructive dialogue about points > of disagreement -- has been almost completely absent from any phase of > this draft, except for the places in which the author (or you or the > shepherd) have rejected points or summarily declared them in the rough. > > > Please provide a detailed description of how -03 > > does or does not map to the earlier mailing list > > discussion. > > When someone from the community provides detailed comments, the > responsibility rests with the author to /engage/ in actual discussion > about them. Not ignore or summarily reject them. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net