Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

Understood - thanks for the clarification. As mentioned, we did go through
the comments and respond and make changes so will be happy to show these to
the chairs/AD if required.

Robert

On 28 July 2015 at 10:50, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 28/07/15 09:18, Robert Cragie wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Please see inline for specific responses.
> >
> > Regarding the old comments: We have tried to respond to these issues in
> > previous follow up e-mails and modify the document in accordance with the
> > responses. Repeating these old comments suggests that neither those
> > responses nor the updated text have been read yet. Please can you read
> the
> > responses and updated text before simply repeating these comments?
> > Otherwise I can't see how we can make any progress on this.
>
> Sorry, we're talking past one another. The old comments are present in
> the tracker and get attached to the email unless I go through them and
> delete them manually. And since they are not blocking I don't spend
> much time tracking if they have/haven't been addressed. And mostly I
> forget once sufficient time has elapsed;-) In other words, it's up to
> you and your AD if you want to consider them or not, I don't mind.
>
> So you can make progress on this in various ways. One is to just ignore
> the comments. Another is to say "yeah, we know it's not blocking but
> we'd actually like to chat about <this> comment." Your chairs/AD may
> have more ideas.
>
> But the main thing is that a "No Objection" ballot is just that, I
> don't object to this moving ahead.
>
> So I'd say if there are any of the comments where you think it is
> interesting to continue to chat, please just mail me about that but
> there is no need to address each one in blow-by-blow fashion. If
> you and your AD think there's no need for more chat, then we're done
> already.
>
> Hope that helps,
> S.
>
>
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > On 25 July 2015 at 15:08, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: No Objection
> >>
> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>
> >>
> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>
> >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the discussion about security. I didn't check
> >> if the comments below were handled in -12, happy to
> >> chat about that if you want.
> >>
> >> First two comments are about text that's new in -11:
> >>
> >> - 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean
> >> it must be used? I think you do.
> >>
> >
> > <RCC>This has been changed to "MUST be used on all nodes" in -12</RCC>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> - 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a
> >> secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement.
> >> Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ?
> >>
> >
> > <RCC>As mentioned before, this is just introductory. I suggest removing
> the
> > sentence to close the comment.</RCC>
> >
>