Re: [BLISS] Last call comments on draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18.

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 11 December 2012 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: bliss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FDC21F84DE for <bliss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.77
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Y5X1A-X3afx for <bliss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F61D21F84DB for <bliss@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (svani@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBBGn7PI032478; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:49:10 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id qBBGn6uh2820803; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:49:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id qBBGn6VO2793813; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:49:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:49:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <201212111649.qBBGn6VO2793813@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
In-reply-to: <772B03DC-6911-43BB-BE78-7DD995A07D87@ntt-at.com> (shida@ntt-at.com)
References: <201212072128.qB7LSF282576958@shell01.TheWorld.com> <772B03DC-6911-43BB-BE78-7DD995A07D87@ntt-at.com>
Cc: bliss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BLISS] Last call comments on draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18.
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:49:52 -0000

> From: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>;
> 
> The draft is going through IETF last call not WGLC 
> so any comments you have should be sent to 
> ietf@ietf.org. 
> 
> Detail review is always welcome but you being a 
> co-author of the draft, these comments I think should 
> have been provided sooner to your co-author or 
> included in the ongoing revision that the draft has 
> undergone. 

Yes, my apologies, I've not been keeping up and got quite rushed and
sloppy.  And though I'm an author, I haven't been involved in the
editing cycles for at least a year (after the my list of technical
issues were resolved).

What is the best way for me to proceed?  Most of my items are really
editorial.  One other item has technical content, but I think the real
issue is that an edit has not been fully applied.  The most
significant item is that I think the document would be clearer if a
summary of behaviors related to the "retain option" was added.  Of
course, all of these should be decided by the current authors, but
what is the proper process at this point?

Dale