Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Another issue with the editor has been his attuitude. He has always
been stubborn he never said things like why don't you provide some
text? or let's edit the document together.

This document has not originated from his own document, it has come
out of a design team so the editor's rigid approach was not warranted.

Regards,

Behcet

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Brian Haberman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/14 9:20 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>>> The WG has an issue tracker set up for this document.  It appears that
>>> the document editor and chairs are using it to track issues raised.  Why
>>> should these concerns be handled any differently.
>>
>> Please refer to the Issue Tracker page:
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/report/1
>>
>> I did have several issues there.
>> The editor replied some of them but I was not happy with them.
>
> Has anyone expressed support for those concerns?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Perusal of the mailing list archives and the minutes of previous netext
>>> meetings reveals no support within the WG for these perceived defects.
>>> That could be a result of a disagreement with the concerns raised or
>>> could a result of people not understanding the concerns.
>>>
>>
>> There at least two common concerns that I believe several people share:
>
> You believe or know?  Why have they not expressed those concerns on the
> mailing list?  If they have, can you provide a pointer?
>
>>
>> where is the flow mobility protocol in the draft?
>>
>> Why is LMA prefix allocation policy a use case for flow mobility protocol?
>>
>>
>> If the Editor does not understand these issues then he needs to read
>> the revision I mentioned.
>
> No.  As I said, that is not an appropriate way to express concerns.  You
> have several concise questions listed above.  Why not expound on those
> with the WG?
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>