Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[Brian E Carpenter]

Not normally, afaik. WG mail archives are the repository for
this sort of thing.

   Brian

Robert Snively wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Thank you.  Does the rough consensus letter go along with
> the draft as an annex so that the information contained in
> it does not get lost?
> 
> Bob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc at zurich.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:38 AM
> > To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> > Cc: iesg at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc at zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK