John,
By and large, I agree with you – if the “don’t like” or “would prefer” comments
are followed-up with “and here’s what I *would* like”, or “would prefer
<blah-blah>”, then it may be concrete enough for us to proceed. To be honest, I
haven’t had the time to wade through all of the comments – a project has come
up here at iDirect that is consuming a large part of my time. I will try to
make some time, however.
I will say this – IMO, we need to be careful with this round of comments.
They’ve come from the WG participants that have complained the loudest, *and
with some reason*, that they’ve been essentially “blown off” with regard to
previous comments. I, for one, look at this as a possible re-ignition of the
firestorm that surrounded AODVv2. Again, IMO – I think we need to try our best
to be responsive to this round of comments, either in terms of “we believe we
have addressed the comments”, or “we don’t have enough information to fully
address comment <blah>”, or “we’ve considered it, and don’t believe it is an
issue *because* <foo>”.
Charlie,
No objections? I guess you’re not counting Thomas’ email, which basically said
“forget the deadline; engage me on email”? Beyond that, I’ve seen responses
from Chris which I took as “go ahead and wait the 3 weeks”, and from Abdussalam
saying “no, please release what you have, then do it again when you have more”.
So, I’d say the responses are all over the map, and I don’t really see any
consensus at all.
Regards,
Stan
From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:29 AM
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Responding to MANET comments
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>
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria Mercieca
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:27 AM
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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. ☺
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.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________
