Hello John,
I would say that the discussions between me and Vicky have resulted in
reasonable resolutions for most of the comments, a few notable questions
for the list, and a very few points where we didn't understand the comment.
So we are likely to have resolutions for the large majority of comments
in the next revision.
However, it is a lot of stuff to read. I hope you'll be able to take a
look...
I gather there were no objections to our request for three weeks...
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 8/17/2015 1:30 AM, John Dowdell wrote:
Stan
I haven't had the cycles to wade through all the comments, but just picking out your comments regarding Thomas below ... we're at the stage where we are closing out on the draft, and for that we need highly constructive criticism with proposed text attached. Generalised comments such as 'don't like', 'would prefer' etc. do not enable us to finish. I guess we don't do demanding in the IETF, but we are going to have to insist that given the stage we are at, if the person making comments cannot propose text to alleviate his or her pain point, I would strongly recommend it goes on the pile of things we will probably never get to look at.
Regards
John
On 14/08/15 17:37, Ratliff, Stanley wrote:
Vicky,
That works for me. My main point is that we don’t necessarily have to get dragged back down into a long, drawn-out email exchange.
Regards,
Stan
*From:*aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Victoria Mercieca
*Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2015 11:27 AM
*To:* aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Responding to MANET comments
Hi Stan,
OK, point by point would be silly, but the points I summarised (unless there are any objections among the author team) might be things that the working group could have an input on? At least we could acknowledge that these are issues we will consider, that we are actively addressing?
Vicky.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Just one observation –
Thomas stated “…I’d much prefer if the authors engage here, on
the list…”
Thomas’ preferences, **plus** 15 Euros, will get him a latte in
the trendy, up-scale, over-priced, coffee house of his choice. J
The point I’m driving at is – don’t take Thomas’ preference as
“we MUST do it this way”. Whatever works best for us is how we
should proceed. And ultimately, all of the email threads that
Thomas **requests** will result in a draft, that has to be
reviewed and approved by the WG. So I guess I would ask - does
going to a point-by-point email discussion with Clausen seem like
something that reduces our time to posting a draft? Perhaps the
answer is that it would on some of the points raised, and it
wouldn’t on others… I don’t know for sure, but it’s at least
worth a quick thought.
Regards,
Stan
This actually looks like a lot of unresolved points :( but they
mostly overlap with Thomas Clausen's comments which I guess we
will go to the mailing list to discuss...
In regards to Thomas' comments, I was drafting an email to
respond and start discussion on the recurring issues he
highlighted. I should also go through our most recent emails to
identify anything outstanding. If you would like to respond to
Chris, I could respond to Thomas? My summary is included below in
case anyone wants to check it before I send?
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the
individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received
this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
