Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

Brian E Carpenter brc at zurich.ibm.com
Wed Jan 7 11:38:18 CET 2004


I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by
comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs.
But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive
enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively unimportant?
Whether other people support the comments is a factor in making that judgement.
So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last call comments
that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is
of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards track document.

My personal view on the document in question is that we are well
beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should
be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the recent comments 
aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more effort. This document
has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is usefully left is to 
archive it as an RFC.

   Brian

Robert Snively wrote:
> 
> I share Keith's concern, both about the response to
> his comments, and to the response about my comments
> from about the same time.
> 
> Bob Snively
> +1-408-333-8135
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM
> > To: avri at acm.org
> > Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC
> >
> >
> > > While we did call rough consensus despite your comments,
> > and those of
> > > Todd Glassey and Alex Conta,  we did not ignore your
> > comments and they
> > > were included in the report on the rough consensus:
> > >
> > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-
> > > December/003245.html
> >
> > that's a stretch.  I certainly didn't recognize a response to
> > any of my
> > comments in this "report".
> >
> > > to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,:
> > >
> > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-
> > > December/003247.html
> >
> > yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my
> > comments.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list