Re: RADEXT WG last call on RFC 2486bis

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Nelson, David wrote:

> I thought we were looking for affirmative acknowledgement from the
> previous commenters that all the issues had been appropriately addressed
> in the revised draft.

As I recall, the three changes in -02 were all minor and
editorial. So far we've used the positive acknowledgment
approach in cases where there's been problems, suspicion
of inadequate review, or something else abnormal. If we
don't suspect these problems it might be more efficient
to just move forward; the issue submitters either responded
positively already or at least they've had quite some time
to look at our proposed text... How about at least making
the period shorter, say a week? I think we have some other
work which has bigger issues, lets get this thing out of
the way so that we can concentrate on the other stuff.

--Jari

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>