Re: [PANRG] [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Laurent,

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:36 PM Ciavaglia, Laurent <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Spencer, Brian, Colin & All,
>
>
>
> Please see in-line below for my replies.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards, Laurent
>
>
>
> *From:* irsg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Spencer Dawkins at
> IETF
> *Sent:* vendredi 11 juin 2021 17:01
> *To:* Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; The IRSG <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [irsg] [PANRG] IRSG review request
> draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07
>
>
>
> Hi, Brian and Laurent,
>
>
>
> I am the Worst. Draft. Shepherd. Ever.
>
>
>
> My apologies for my Long Winter's Nap, but I just noticed that I haven't
> seen a response from either Laurent or "the RG chairs" about the changes in
> -08 (for Laurent's review) and -09, and when Colin said he was waiting for
> confirmation from "the RG chairs", he might have meant "the draft shepherd,
> who is usually one of the RG chairs, but not for THIS draft". Assuming so,
> and now that I'm awake, let's move forward. Please see below.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:21 PM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Brian, Laurent – thanks!
>
> At this stage, I’ll wait for confirmation from Laurent and the RG chairs
> that the changes are okay, before proceeding with the IRSG final poll.
>
>
>
>  -08 seems, to my eye, to be a significant improvement over -07 - thank
> you, Laurent - but I saw a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have
> been translated into the draft yet.
>
>
>
> Laurent suggested labeling the questions, for ease of reference (both in
> the document and in the RG). I like that suggestion. Brian, do you have a
> thought about this?
>
>
>
> Laurent noted that the core topic in section 2.5 seemed to be focused on
> privacy/protection against pervasive surveillance, and asked if there were
> other known/foreseen implications for what is now "of Path Awareness for
> the Transport and Application Layers".I did not see a response or text
> change here. Brian, is there anything to add?
>
>
>
> Laurent, if you could let me/Brian know what you think of the changes in
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-panrg-questions-09.txt&url1=draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07.txt,
> almost all of which are in response to your review, that would be AWESOME.
>
> *[Ciavaglia, Laurent] I’ve read the latest version (-09) and my comments
> have been well addressed (thank you). The document is fine to proceed for
> me.*
>
> *I remain available if Brian works out a revision for the above points,
> but I trust he will “Do the right thing” **😉**  (credits: Spencer and
> Spike)*
>

Thank you for your follow-up on this!

I think I'm waiting for a response from Brian about whether a new revision
is needed for these last two points.

Best,

Spencer


> Best,
>
>
>
> Spencer
>