Hi SM, A lack of response after three days’ time, two days of which are over a weekend, is not “unresponsive.” The last call for this document expires on April 1. I expect all the last call comments will be responded to in a timely fashion during or after the last call. Alissa > On Mar 17, 2019, at 3:35 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear IETF Chair, > > I am contacting you as, from what I understand, you are the Responsible Area Director for the IASA2 Working Group. A few days ago, i sent an email to the IASA20 Working Group Chairs as the editor of draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07 pointed out that he may not be the appropriate contact to respond to the Last Call comments which I sent. The IASA20 Working Group Chairs did not respond to the comments. > > I took a quick look at the working group mailing list and noticed that the communication style [1] followed is tailored for participants from the United States of America. I read the letter [2] from 2013 in which the question of the "legitimacy of the IETF as an International Standards Development Organization" was raised. I would like it to be clear that I am not requesting any action on that as it is not within my responsibilities to work on such matters within an IETF context. > > According to Section 6.5.1 of RFC 2026, "a person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s)". It is unfortunately not possible for me to have such a discussion when the IASA20 Working Group Chairs are unresponsive. As such, I am bringing this matter to your attention. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/EERzQooyonx-d95vtTod4uYQpfw > 2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ylAGDDpDDmcEyaNHpudF4Zqlqs4 >
