RE: Comments

Just to be clear about the outcomes -- if you disagree with any of our
resolutions, the WG takes another look at the issue to make sure it
hasn't missed any nuances or has any new ideas for a solution.  If not,
we record that the comment was not accepted.  When we ask the Director
to move us to Candidate Recommendation, we'll discuss each un-accepted
comment with him.  If he finds significant merit in one, he can send the
spec back to the committee with instructions to resolve the comment.
This usually happens when there is a clear technical flaw or
incompatibility with other parts of the architecture rather than a
design choice.

So, instead of asking whether you are "satisfied" with our resolutions,
which is hard to answer "yes" to when the comment has been rejected, I'm
really asking if you wish to waive your right to have these issues
reviewed by the Director when we move to Candidate Recommendation.

I infer your response to mean "no" I'm not fully satisfied with all the
resolutions, but "yes" I accept that these issues do not need specific
appellate review with the Director.

Thanks again for the comments, although we didn't change the spec as
much as you'd like I believe we did make significant improvements as a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz []
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:32 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Comments
> Let me be more clear; I should have probably added a smiley or such to
> my previous note.
> I appreciate the consideration that the WG gave to my points.  While
> we
> still have some disagreements, I must agree that you've been more than
> fair.  Time to let the marketplace decide. :)
> 	/r$
> --
> Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology
> XS40 XML Security Gateway

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 15:03:42 UTC