W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Draft -16 out now

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:40:26 -0800
Message-Id: <0D823757-9C81-48EC-A6B9-C96D44AE17D7@cisco.com>
Cc: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On Dec 1, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> Hmm - I know some times it seems this way but the IESG usually  
>> takes a pretty close look at Last Call comments. My vague  
>> recollection of the XCAP work was their was significant discussion  
>> of your comments and that the document was updated to address some  
>> of them. I also seem to recall that Lisa with her AD role actually  
>> took some of your comments and added them as DISCUSS against the  
>> document. I'm not claiming for a second that the handling of XCAP  
>> was flawless or that the end result does not have significant  
>> problems, but I do think your comments were heard.
>
> The problem with the IESG LC process in general is that it  
> completely lacks visibility. You don't know whether people read  
> your comments, any you usually do not get any feedback at all,  
> until it is too late (that is, the IESG approved the document). Fix  
> that process issue, and IESG Last Call actually will become a  
> useful test for a spec.

This is not really a problem specific to this WG or document - I am  
pretty sure that the vast majority of IETF LC comments do get read  
but I know the IESG has been trying to reduce the odds of things  
getting missed at this stage. You will likely see some updated text  
in the LC email boiler plate some time soon to help with exactly this  
problem. Anyways, I don't think it is particularly relevant to this  
document but yes, noted and people are trying to improve this.

Cullen
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 23:40:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT