Re: [GROW] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: (with DISCUSS)

["Osterweil, Eric" <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:24 PM, McPherson, Danny <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 3/3/15, 10:03 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> To be clear, these comments arrived during IETF last call and were well
>> circulated.
>> My Discuss is that the comments were not addressed in the normal way of
>> IETF
>> review comments. However, I offered to adopt the comments as my own and
>> let you
>> discuss them with me if you prefer.
>> 
>> RFC 7282 provides some hints on addressing comments and, as Joel has
>> noted,
>> addressing comments does not necessarily imply changing the document.
> 
> Yep, understood.
> 
>> I am sure, however, that if none of the currently listed document authors
>> has
>> the bandwidth to run through this process (which is perfectly fine, and
>> reflects
>> the fact that the IETF is not the only activity for many of us), the WG
>> chairs
>> will find it simple to appoint an additional editor to run through the
>> final
>> piece of the process. So the statement (which I choose to not interpret
>> as a
>> threat :-) that this document might never see the RFC Editor, is just
>> nonsense.
> 
> It was most certainly NOT a ³threat² - whatever that would mean as I don¹t
> really have an alternative go forward plan, the comments need to be
> addressed.  It was more an indication that someone finding the cycles to
> dig back into this and circulate received comments with the WG for
> reconsideration.  
> 
> It was simply an indication to the folks involved that the timelines
> conveyed yesterday weren¹t realistic for an array of reasons ‹ and perhaps
> a nudge to the current pen holder to allocate some cycles for this as
> appropriate.

I will get on this in the next 1-2 days.  Sorry for the delay, no need to add pens. ;)

Eric