Re: [RPRWG] Could we discard old (often obsolete) comments?
David and all:
Preferably, withdrawal of comments should be done by the original author.
Indeed, discussion of all comments is best done with the commenter present.
We should defer discussion when the commenter is at the meeting but in a
parallel resolution session, and then circulate a list of people needed for
the discussions. This would allow commenters to defend their positions and
accept action items when more text is called for. It would also reduce
speculation on whether the adopted resolution would satisfy the absent
commenter.
Jim
"David V. James" wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Good point. Maybe this would be best handled by deleting _my_
> old comments from D0.1, as I can confirm they are largely
> redundant.
>
> I agree that others should not be discarded for this round
> of review, but that we should decide next week on how to
> handle the general case of old-resolved future comments.
>
> DVJ
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:12 AM
> >>To: David V. James; Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Could we discard old (often obsolete) comments?
> >>
> >>
> >>David, many of us submitted comments under the assumption that our old
> >>unaddressed comments would still stand. It is now too late to
> >>discard them
> >>for draft 0.2. However, at next week's meeting we can decide how
> >>to proceed
> >>for the next draft.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Robert D. Love
> >>President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
> >>President, LAN Connect Consultants
> >>7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> >>Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> >>email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "David V. James" <dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>To: <Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
> >>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:11 PM
> >>Subject: [RPRWG] Could we discard old (often obsolete) comments?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Tom,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to suggest that we discard unaddressed comments
> >>> (which were skipped due to lack of time) from draft 0.1 when
> >>> we move on to D0.2. Instead, can we let the owner of these
> >>> comments resubmit them with revised page, line, section, and
> >>> (if necessary) technical content?
> >>>
> >>> On my last comments, I originally planned to just resubmit
> >>> them with revised page/line/section numbers. However, by the
> >>> time I reviewed them, the technical comments often changed.
> >>> Even when the technical content remained stable, it was easy
> >>> enough to cut-and-past the old comment into the new.
> >>>
> >>> This would seem to save you some time, not having to deal
> >>> with old (and possibly no longer relevant) comments. Saving
> >>> the groups time would also be valuable. I'm the one that has
> >>> the most comments on record (and therefore most likely to
> >>> complain), and its my preference. So, hopefully no one else
> >>> would complain.
> >>>
> >>> If this isn't possible, in general, can I request it be applied
> >>> to my comments in specific (it technically possible, of course).
> >>> I think discarding my D0.1 comments would allow for a more
> >>> effecient addressing of D0.2 comments. Any minor missed topics
> >>> will be a small percentage and (if any) can be addressed through
> >>> the next round of comments.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> DVJ
> >>>
> >>> BTW, John Lemon supplied the Frame sources for D0.2, so I don't
> >>> need them any more. However, it could help contributors (in general)
> >>> prepare drop-in text if these were generally available.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> David V. James, PhD
> >>> Chief Architect
> >>> Network Processing Solutions
> >>> Data Communications Division
> >>> Cypress Semiconductor
> >>> 110 Nortech Parkway
> >>> San Jose, CA 95134
> >>> Work: +1.408.942.2010
> >>> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
> >>> Fax: +1.408.942.2099
> >>> Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>