On Wed, 30 Mar 2006, John Levine wrote:
How detailed does this have to be? Point-by-point refutation, or
something a bit more general?
Point by point suggestions for improvement, e.g., section 42.1 argues
foo, whereas the author seems unfamiliar with bar which contradicts
his points. Basically enough to hand back to the author to say "fix
all this and we'll look at it again."
Surely that form of response conceeds the correctness of the sentiment
expressed in the draft title. The problem with the draft is not that it
has mistakes, but that it is a mistake.
Daniel Feenberg
feenberg is at nber dotte org
Timeframe for responses?
Didn't say, a week or two should be OK.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg