On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yes, my comment meant that it is a reply to the review message that there may
be not clear definition from other participant point of view. Sorry my review
is still not complete, I will send it. Do you mean my reply is not right, if
I like to give a short comment before my full review.
AB
On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
I am having sever difficulty parsing all of the information from your comment.
And currently cannot see anything actionable by the authors.
The draft does not list ITU in abbreviation,
Loa has answered why this is not necessary.
You mean that IETF agrees to do that as per a RFC xxxx passed or community
awareness.
there are many terminology not clear but more general definition. I
prefer specific defining.
This comment gives us nothing to go on! Which terminology do you find not
clear
but is a more general definition? And why is this a problem?
You cannot expect the authors to fix or even discuss something if you do not
show them what you are talking about.
I am talking about the draft in overall, I will do my review if time is
available.
Insubstantial comments during the last call by someone who claims to have not
reviewed the document are rather condescending. If you were the author what
would you do with this "feedback"?
Expectations of collegiality require a certain respect for common purpose, and
the purpose of the last call is to surface remaining issues of substance, test
for consensus and move on. (2418 section 8)
Also many times refers to references to define without mentioning
what was that definition,
What do you mean? Can you give an example and say how you think it should be?
Will be shown in a full review message, this was a comment message, but
thanks for your advise
is that defined only in ITU and IETF cannot define its technology, or
is it agreeing on a joint definition so IETF is just following ITU in some
terms.
*This* document is seeking IETF consensus. If that consensus is reached all
definitions will be IETF definitions. If those definitions originate in ITU-T
documents, they are also ITU-T definitions. If ITU-T documents make normative
reference to IETF documents that contain definitions, those definitions are
ITU-T definitions.
Maybe I have missed the point of your comment.
The point is why do we need other organisation definitions, or why did the
author use those definitions, my point is any definition should relate to
internet technology not references of other org, we may use other definitions
for ours.
Adrian
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail