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

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On May 15, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Ignas Bagdonas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents.

  Referencing the rules is nice.  Addressing my comments would be nicer.

> ...  Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current authors cannot make progress with the document,

  My issue isn't "progress".  My issue is addressing reviews raised on the list.

> WG chairs do not have intentions of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if evidence of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the expected level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence.

   I don't see how reviews (which were ignored) can be construed as "no evidence" that the authors were ignoring reviews.

  Which was my point.  If document authors issue new revs irrespective of what the WG suggests, the chairs should replace the authors with ones who work towards WG consensus.

  The alternative is to accept a draft as a WG document, and then to allow the authors to do pretty much whatever they want, and then to rubber-stamp the final document as an RFC.

> The process of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been, but it is not stalled.

  I never claimed it was stalled.  I claimed that the authors had ignored reviews.

  I just don't understand what point you were trying to make here.  The only subjects you addressed were ones I hadn't raised.

  Alan DeKok.