Hi ralph,
Thanks for your contribution.
Do you think it would address this comment if the end of Section 1 (the
introduction) included a paragraph such as...
It is expected that upon publication, the content of this document
will be transferred to the Working Groups Chairs' wiki, or this
document be referenced there.
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: 03 December 2014 16:07
To: draft-secretaries-good-practices(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: IETF WG Chairs; ietf
Subject: Re: Reply to LC comments on draft-secretaries-good-practices-06
Robert Sparks wrote a gen-art review of this document:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88387.html
I don't see that Robert's suggestion has been followed:
Also, as best I can tell, there's been ONE post in response
to this IETF LC on ietf general, and a lot of discussion in
other places (78 messages so far on wgchairs - see:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=wgchairs&q=draft-
secretaries-good-practices> ). It might be good for the
shepherd to bring a summary of those discussions to the IETF list,
and perhaps steer the remaining conversation that direction?
The summary below does not take into account the suggestion that the contents
of draft-secretaries-good-practices be published on the WG chairs' wiki page
rather than in an RFC. Was that alternative considered?
- Ralph
On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:29 PM 11/11/14, Martin Vigoureux
<martin(_dot_)vigoureux(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
All,
thank you for your reviews and comments on draft-secretaries-good-practices-
06.
Sorry for the delayed response.
Summarizing the comments:
* We noticed some opposition to moving this document as a BCP updating RFC
2418.
We have decided no to progress it as such. We have thus removed the
normative section (Section 2.), changed the intended status to Informational,
removed the update to RFC 2418 in the header and Abstract, and have moved
RFC 2418 as an Informative Reference.
* We understood some clarifications were needed to more precisely position
the content of this document with regards to WG chairs responsibilities.
* We also understood that some clarifications were needed with regards to
the
relevancy of WG Secretaries, as well a who has responsibility over their
appointment and the delegation.
There were bits and pieces of text covering some of these points. Text was
also
missing. We have regrouped all the relevant text elements under a new section
(Applicability Statement) with the objective of clarifying the blurry points.
* In response to specific comments we have also clarified the elements
pertaining to access to tools.
* Finally, we have taken into account a good number of rewording
suggestions.
I am ready to go through each comment that was made, if desired.
We have published a new version of the draft capturing all that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07
Thank you
-m