Re: [stir] JWT/JSON (was - Re: Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05)

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

I responded to your PASSporT review here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stir/current/msg02478.html


That was the response that I anyway believed the points in your review
warranted: I addressed what I took to be your main concerns, while
promising to incorporate some of your minor points in the next revision.
Since then, we've been talking about what major changes should or
shouldn't be made to the architecture as a result of your review. If you
think there's something else that the process guarantees you from a
response, or if my response doesn't address your major points, tell us
what you want to talk about.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 8/8/16, 4:24 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 8/8/2016 4:14 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> In that case, if the list has heard your issues, I'd be interested in
>> knowing how much support there is for implementing the changes you
>> proposed.
>
>
>Jon,
>
>It appears you misread my note.  What I asked for was that the feedback
>I provided be processed in the usual way it is done in the IETF.
>
>That is:
>
>On 8/8/2016 3:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> In order to avoid having authors do a guessing game about what will
>> resolve questions and concerns, they normally pursue those items on
>> the working group's mailing list.
>
>
>Unless things are done differently in this part of the IETF, it is not
>considered normal IETF process to request working group consensus about
>whether to respond to the details of a review...
>
>But perhaps the word 'respond' is unclear?  In the IETF it means to give
>meaningful responses.  That's quite different from, say, automatically
>expecting suggestions to be agreed to.
>
>d/
>-- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net