Steve, You say:
My recollection of the last PEM WG meeting, captured in my notes, suggests that a number of details of the I-D were discussed and that there was general agreement on some of the problems with that draft and some suggestions for changes.
We also remember that there was some discussion and some suggestions for changes from the working group. We have to the best of our ability and understanding addressed each suggestion. Our expectation was that all that would be necessary at this point would be for the working group to satisfy itself that the changes had been made. No new technical points should arise as we have made no technical changes, with the exception of the removal of the PGP identifier.
I don't feel that we should have to drop whatever else we have been doing and quickly review yet another revision of this I-D and then quickly vote on it after the authors have taken such a long time to make changes and release the document.
As many suggestions were intended to improve the exposition, our compliance means that the text may appear to be greatly changed. But changes (with the exception of the removal of the PGP identifier) in the text were at the behest of the working group or the chair. We did not expect that a large effort would be required to review the revision, as the review need only verify compliance with the suggestions. We hope that this will all be settled and finalized to everyone's satisfaction without extended delay. Jim
binbXdrrICeKV.bin
Description: application/pem-signature