Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-10

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/9/2016 7:55 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> I don't know how to start a working group discussion about "many and
> serious problems." Like I said, my first response to your stir-passport
> review covered what I considered to be its most significant issues, which
> were largely about the fundamental architecture and the document
> organization (that is, the modularity with other specifications).
>
> I just read the whole thing again. The remainder of your comments are
> overwhelmingly stylistic, editorial or philosophical.


Jon,

Let's start with a rather simple exercise.

My review of passport has more than 70 questions in it.  (I stopped 
counting after that, and I haven't counted the number in -4474bis, 
though it too is substantial.)  While indeed, some of those pertain only 
to stylistic points many/most do not.

So the simple exercise is to ask you to please respond publicly to the 
questions I ask in my reviews.

And yes, it's fine to skip the obviously minor stuff.  If I think you 
missed something important, there's a reasonable chance I'll note it...

If you find yourself wanting more of a challenge, look for the various 
places that I note that something claiming to be (or to refer to) a 
specification does not actually supply specification detail or that the 
specification is wrong (eg, doesn't work) and then respond publicly to 
the substance.

Thanks.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net