Patrik Fältström patrik at
Fri May 23 07:53:51 CEST 2008

On 23 maj 2008, at 03.32, Mark Davis wrote:

> I had a number of comments posted some time ago on each of the  
> documents; to
> the best of my knowledge you didn't respond on them. It sounds like  
> you want
> me (and others like me) to go back and review each new version to  
> see which
> have been addressed and which haven't, and revise my comments  
> accordingly.
> It would be more effective to respond on the list with commentary as  
> to why
> you did or didn't incorporate responses to the comments made.

That is not easy as not only you make comments on the document. What  
is changed in the document is what I as an editor see as consensus on  
this mailing list (and what reaches me privately in email, on the  
phone etc). Given the conclusions I draw from _all_ comments, I update  
the document accordingly.

To then go back to each one of the people that have come with comments  
and write for each one of them exactly what part of their comments I  
think this or that on is something that take more time than what I  
think we have in the wg.

It is much better if reviewers do exactly what you propose. That you  
have a list of issues, you for each new version of the document do a  
diff, and check not only what comments are taken care of (that you  
then remove from your list), what issues are still valid, and what new  
issues have arised. And then post to the list again.

That makes my life much simpler, and makes the work in the wg easier  
and more smooth.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list