IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Tue, 16 May 2017 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=63093225e0=uri@ll.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62561129B22; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Yr6dIegEQVz; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7638C12E042; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id v4GGRN7f017435; Tue, 16 May 2017 12:27:23 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
Thread-Index: AQHSy08ttZSP0sW41keg1j/jrc0SIqHxXY8AgACwjQCAAF7+gIADaB0AgAFZTgCAADIWAP//y10A
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:27:22 +0000
Message-ID: <1729A536-582D-4013-B288-80A9C2487747@ll.mit.edu>
References: <D53BBCC7.22ECC8%dcmgash@cisco.com> <61D9FC7A-6F10-44E6-8400-578C4FEE1988@deployingradius.com> <D53C62F4.22F82E%dcmgash@cisco.com> <E7D62944-46B9-4091-BF16-0AF8CA47626D@deployingradius.com> <fc8a1ff5-db6f-d463-8ff7-77ec03f1f25f@gmail.com> <CC6784CA-0F0D-4ACB-93CF-C398DFB30101@deployingradius.com> <aecfa188-d7cb-3395-8c41-fb89d8838fc7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aecfa188-d7cb-3395-8c41-fb89d8838fc7@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.21.0.170409
x-originating-ip: [172.25.177.148]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3577782442_1410017677"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-16_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705160130
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/1jEPw5pABnGZ2whizfjb-n0ymFo>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:31:26 -0000

On 5/16/17, 11:35 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Ignas Bagdonas" <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

    No-one has seen the -07 revision yet, therefore it seems to be too early 
    to make judgement whether comments and suggestions were or were not 
    addressed. 


I don’t think you got the point. Which was:

Upon receiving the review (especially if it was posted to the mailing list) the authors are supposed to reply to that mailing list with something like:

“In response to the comment <X> we are changing the text in the document to say <Y>”. 

If it is done at the time (or after the time) when the edits are applied, then adding “page #, section #, paragraph” to the above.

Or “We decided not to make a change requested by the comment <X> because of <Y>”

It should not be a matter of “judgment” – the authors have to explicitly provide that info. Then the WG can discuss and/or decide if the proposed changes adequately address the comments.

What is so difficult about this?
 

    Authors have promised to address the raised comments 
    discussing them on the list and responding to previous reviews.

I’m waiting for emails like this to stop appearing, and emails addressing the above to start appearing.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email