Re: Resolution of design issues identified during IESG Review

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Hey,

Just privately.  It was clear you had good intentions, and you really did catch some problems, particularly in the TLS doc.

I guess my only suggestion would be that you read over your comments and trim them down to those that you think are really important before posting them in the ballot.  I know that means that you leave some potential improvements on the table, but I have received private comments from area directors in the past.  That worked out pretty well.

Thanks for the continued engagement though.  Though the volume was hard to manage, it was easy to resolve things in the end.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021, at 10:23, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:32:35AM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > in response to the IESG Review of the QUIC transport, tls, recovery and invariants documents, individual GitHub issues were opened and the documents moved to the "Revised I-D Needed" state. (The HTTP/3 and QPACK IESG reviews will happen at a later date.)
> > 
> > The editors have been hard at work triaging and responding to the issues. Thanks to a concerted effort, most of the issues have already been resolved. Some were deemed to require no action and have been closed, some were Editorial issues that have been addressed by PRs that have been merged into the working copies. The remaining issues have been identified as Design issues, see https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adesign+-label%3Acall-issued
> > 
> > As previously mentioned, we are boosting the visibility of these Design issues in order to allow the WG and the IESG to comment on the proposed resolutions:
> 
> I'm satisfied with the proposed resolutions for my issues.
> 
> I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize to the editors, chairs
> and WG as a whole: despite my significant efforts, the quality of my review
> comments failed to meet my expectations for myself, leading to a lot of
> essentially wasted effort in translating ballot comments to github issues,
> explaining why there is no issue, and closing out issues with no change.
> I'm sorry that happened, and needless to say, I will specifically endeavor
> to avoid a repeat next week for the h3 documents.
> 
> With remorse,
> 
> Ben
> 
>