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

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

Your comments went out to this public list, and the process of asking the
working group here whether or not people want further discussion is,
inescapably, public consideration. If you want to encourage discussion of
particular points that you think are vital for the working group to
consider, I would ask, yet again, that you identify what those points are
and discuss them. If the group agrees that more consideration is needed,
it will become clear pretty quickly, I imagine.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 8/9/16, 3:18 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 8/9/2016 3:01 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>>> The idea that authors would seek working group consensus about whether
>>> to respond in detail to a detailed review is outside of my IETF
>>> experience.  I'm astonished at the very idea of it.
>>
>> It is not at all outside of my experience to ask a working group if it
>> thinks that a set of objections (cast as questions or no) merit further
>> consideration.
>
>That's not quite what you are doing, Jon.  You are, instead, asking
>whether they are worth /any/ explicit, public consideration.  Really,
>that's a process point of an entirely different color.
>
>
>> I will stress again that, from my initial response to your stir-passport
>> review, I immediately agreed that you had made some helpful comments in
>
>Yes you did.  So it's unfortunate that that fact is entirely irrelevant
>to the current discussion, since it has nothing to do with the question
>of have /any/ detailed public response to details of a review.
>
>
>d/
>
>-- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net