Re: [TICTOC] WGLC on draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-05.txt

Russell,

You actually submitted comments on the Security Requirements document 
(not the MIB) after the close of the WGLC on that document. Yaakov and I 
discussed this, and we decided to proceed with the submission of the 
document to the IESG and to address those comments as part of the IETF 
last call process. This document has been around for a long time, and we 
wanted to proceed with getting it progressed.

Regards,
Karen

On 5/16/13 1:17 PM, Smiley, Russell wrote:
> I also submitted comments to V05 on the mailing list and have not received any acknowledgment as to whether they will be addressed or have been rejected.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01387.html
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
>
> Russell Smiley
> Principal Systems Engineer
> +1 613 592 0859 x1831 direct
> +1 613 322 9433 mobile
>
>
> Integrated Device Technology, Canada Inc.
> 603 March Rd, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K2K 2M5
> www.IDT.com NASDAQ: IDTI
>
> CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This email and any attachments thereto may contain private and confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> From: tictoc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tictoc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Gross
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:09 PM
> To: Karen ODonoghue
> Cc: tictoc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TICTOC] WGLC on draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-05.txt
>
> I submitted comments on v03 11 January (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01331.html). Vinay indicated in a short message on 23 January the comments would be addressed in the next version (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01333.html). v04 was published 31 January. I did not see any notes from the authors associated with that revision. A quick check of the v03-v04 diff shows evidence that not all my comments were directly addressed. Can I get a summary of how my comments were addressed? I'm fine if some of these were rejected but I would like to verify that they were given consideration.
>
>
> Kevin Gross
> +1-303-447-0517
> Media Network Consultant
> AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com, www.X192.org
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:
> This message initiates a two week TICTOC Working Group Last Call on advancing:
>
> Title : Precision Time Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2) Management Information Base
> Author(s) : Vinay Shankarkumar, Laurent Montini, Tim Frost, Greg Dowd
> Filename : draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-05.txt
> Pages : 77
> Date : 2013-02-25
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib/?include_text=1
>
> as a Standards Track RFC. Substantive comments and statements of support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. This last call will end on 31 May 2013.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TICTOC mailing list
> TICTOC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
>