Re: [Mops] TreeDN Shepherd Review

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

Great, excellent!

@Lenny: I think that boilerplate is something fine to leave to the RFC
editor to remove.

Kyle

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:05 AM Chris Lemmons <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Most excellent! My turn, I'll update my writeup and get it officially
> filed.
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 5:27 PM Leonard Giuliano <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > @Chris- thanks for the pointers to the non-ASCII chars.  I tried another
> > editor and hopefully got them.  And thanks again for the amazingly
> > thorough review.
> >
> > @Kyle- I left the boilerplate in there for now bc a draft just feels
> naked
> > without it.  Otherwise, I cleaned up the rest of the doc and think it's
> > ready for submission.  Here's a diff of the recent changes:
> >
> >
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-mops-treedn-02&url2=draft-ietf-mops-treedn-03&difftype=--html
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Kyle Rose wrote:
> >
> > |
> > |
> > | On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 2:48?AM Chris Lemmons <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > |
> > |       @kyle: I wasn't entirely certain whether I should add my full
> writeup
> > |       to the datatracker before or after giving the authors a chance
> to make
> > |       the minor updates. It felt weird to add it with the nits when I
> > |       suspected the authors would want to fix at least some subset of
> them
> > |       before sending it for additional review. Let me know what works
> best
> > |       for streamlining things.
> > |
> > |
> > | I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm happy to let the authors
> choose what to resolve now vs. later. Once you and the authors are both
> happy with the report, submit it and I'll get
> > | the ball rolling on publication.
> > |
> > | Thanks,
> > | Kyle
> > |
> > |
> > |
>