RE: Comments on core-991001

Joseph:

I'm answering for Jim as well since our comments were from both of us: 

In IETF drafts, the open technical issues are usually a separate section at
the end which you already have. Reading the "editorial comments" in the
current draft, however, we find statements like "...However, these
applications abuse the notion of the open Web model..." not appropriate to
an IETF draft since they are clearly not technical. 

Also, "Security Comments" should go into the "Security Considerations"
section. 

Finally, the formatting you're using for both (boxed) will not be carried
into the IETF draft. We're sure you know that where they are placed now is
within the body of the sections and would appear as normal descriptive text.

--Barbara Fox
Microsoft

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:27 PM
To: Jim Schaad (Exchange)
Cc: W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Comments on core-991001


At 14:34 99/10/05 -0700, Jim Schaad (Exchange) wrote:
 >15.  We assume that the editorial comments will be removed in the process
of
 >creating an IETF I-D. 

Thanks for the comments! Just wanted to reply to this one quickly before I
head home. If you are referring to comments that are rendered in red and
begin with ";" yes. If you mean things that begin "Editorial Comment:" not
necessarily. I believe a draft specification should be clear and terse, but
also give an indication of those issues which are still not resolved or
immature. An affect of specification maturity is the elimination of those
comments; until then I think they are necessary to focus attention/comment
from reviewers and ensure that (warn) reviewers/implementors do not read a
specification as if the whole thing is evenly baked.


_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 19:11:05 UTC