Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-02.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

This version of the draft was submitted to address the WG last call comments. Note that
the DISMAN WG was also polled during WG last call and, although they had a couple of
questions, they did not produce anything that needed a change to the draft.

There are a few nits outstanding and it offers me the oportunity to preach to draft
authors and editors.
(Note: I'm an author of this draft so, as usual, I am talking to myself.)

When you are responsible for a WG draft you need to assume full responsibility for the
state of the draft and for informing the WG about the changes in the draft. Thus, when a
new version is published to address WG last call comments it is important that the editor
sends a note to the mailing list to describe how they have addressed each issue. It should
not be left up to the WG chair to go through the comments one by one and check to see if
they have been handled.

Similarly, if (as often seems to be the case these days)-: the draft is mangled in the
publication process, it is the editor's job to handle this with the secretariat and ensure
that a new, clean copy is published.

So, for this draft, can we please have:
- an email that shows what has been done to address each last call comment
- a clean version with
   - page throws
   - formatting fixed
   - line lengths kept to the required minimum

Thanks,
Adrian