Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-10.txt

[Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave,
	In your previous messages, you seemed to me to indicate
your were speaking as an individual, rather than representing the
consensus of the group.  The questions I put forward in the previous
message are intended to get the group consensus on the positions
you put forward in response to my comments.  Sorry if the wording
seems strange; I drew them from your comments as faithfully
as I could.
	Some of them (e.g. the "Does the working group concur
that the analytic concerns of the OPES working group have been incorporated?)
are purely confirmations.  None of them are meant to be tendentious.
This is an effort on my part, in the face of fairly obvious miscommunication,
to be clear on the questions I would like to see the WG's response to
so that we can move forward.
	One comment inline:

At 11:48 PM -0700 7/22/04, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > If there is anyone else on the IESG who share your specific concerns,
> > > they have not voiced them.
>
> TH> Several agreed with these points during the call, but felt that I
> TH> should hold the
> TH> DISCUSS.  If you would like me to ask them to put in their own
> TH> DISCUSSes, I'll talk to Scott about it.
>
> Forgive me, but I thought the new world of IESG transparency assured
> us of getting clear IESG statements that are clearly labeled as to AD
> source.

They are clearly labelled as to AD source; the choice of other ADs not
to enter their own DISCUSS comments when they agree with the points
already raised is also a choice to let the AD who has written the DISCUSS
determine when it is answered.

As an example, it is very common for the Security ADs to raise issues
with a spec that the rest of the IESG supports.  It is rare for those
to be documented in independent DISCUSSes.

If, however, the working group is concerned that a point raised is an
outlier opinion of a single AD and not supported by other IESG concerns,
an update to confirm that the IESG as a whole is possible.


> > > I offered text intended to respond to the concerns documented from other
>  >>ADs and have not yet been told that those formulations are unacceptable.
> > >

I am glad to hear that this has been resolved.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie