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

The "normal" expected accepted customary way of responding to comments is replying to the list with something like: 

To address the comment <x>, the new document (page#, section, paragraph) says "blah-blah-blah".

Or 

We decided not to make changes requested by comment <x> because of blah-blah-blah. 

Regards,
Uri

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2017, at 10:08, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 13, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an individual
>> response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that together.
> 
>  The point is to explain *why* the review was accepted or rejected.  i.e. to have a discussion around the topic.
> 
>  From your earlier comment:
> 
>>> So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible,
>>> and where we can apply then, to the doc.
> 
>  Which items were incorporated?
> 
>  Which items were *not* incorporated?  Why were they not incorporated?
> 
>  There is no need to respond to each item individually.  Grouping things together is fine.
> 
>  But when there are questions, they should be answered.  When comments are rejected, there should be an explanation.
> 
>  My larger issue with the review process so far is that the existing implementors haven't reviewed the document.  So we have no idea whether or not it describes the protocol they've implemented, or the choices they've made.
> 
>  Alan DeKok.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

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

Attachment: smime.p7s