Re: [Tools-discuss] Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10(with COMMENT)

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

I message that said a DISCUSS was cleared would be helpful, but authors
take these as new comments.

Russ

On 12/9/2010 10:02 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Actually as shepherding AD I find useful to receive a message about a
> DISCUSS was cleared. Moreover, you can look at this as a change as the
> DISCUSS text disappears.  
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of Russ Housley
>> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:14 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: 'The IESG'
>> Subject: Re: Tim Polk's No Objection on 
>> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10(with COMMENT)
>>
>> I do not think that clearing a DISCUSS should generate a 
>> message at all unless the content of the COMMENT has changed.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> On 12/8/2010 6:19 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> Folks, this subject line looks like a bug to me. 
>>>
>>> The email thread will be about the COMMENT, not about the 
>> No Objection
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> On Behalf 
>>>> Of Tim Polk
>>>> Sent: 08 December 2010 22:09
>>>> To: The IESG
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; 
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Tim Polk's No Objection on 
>> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10:
>>>> (with COMMENT)
>>>>
>>>> Tim Polk has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10: 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 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> In section 3.1, the document state withdrawn is listed but is not 
>>>> defined and no reference is given.  Text was added that indicated 
>>>> this is self-explanatory, but I must be dense since I still don't 
>>>> know what it means,
>>>>
>>>> I do not want to delay things further, though, and see no harm in 
>>>> moving forward with this text.
>>>
>>>
>>
>