I would like to first see that comments submitted from the prior requests
are acknowledged by the authors.
I submitted comments to which there was no response:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07804.html
So we have an author that is a chair approving documents without
acknowledging or addressing comments received from a 3-day
solicitation-for-comments by the same.
I think following normal IETF procedure would be a better course of action.
This document should not have been approved as a wg item until all comments
are addressed.
-Marc-
On 9/15/09 11:58 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> In an effort to generate discussion and progress a bit more
> efficiently in the WG, Richard and I would like to experiment with
> something we're calling "working group second-to-last call" (WG2LC).
> We think the existing structures that set deadlines for comment (WGLC,
> IETF LC, etc.) are rather effective at motivating people to take a
> look at documents of interest, so we'd like to extend that concept a
> bit further. WG2LC is what it sounds like: an informal call for
> comments with a deadline, preceding the issuance of an official WGLC.
> The idea is to air some discussion about a document before it reaches
> the point of being ready for WGLC.
>
> As a first experiment for WG2LC, consider this a working group second-
> to-last call for comments on
>
> draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00.txt
>
> Please send your comments about this document to the list by 23
> September 2009.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
