RE: [RPRWG] Could we discard old (often obsolete) comments?
Colleagues,
A clarification on the handling of comments. Once a comment is
submitted by the WG and has been posted on the website, there are
only two ways that it can exit the database:
1. It is resolved (accept/accept-modified/reject). Further,
if it is a technical-binding comment AND we are in the
balloting phase, the commenter must agree with the
resolution, or else it is carried with the new draft
and recirculated.
2. It is withdrawn by the commenter during the interim or
Plenary meeting, preferably during the comment resolution
session.
All other comments will be carried forward, even if duplicate,
redundant or otherwise unnecessary. The editors are not allowed
to discard comments willy-nilly, and it would cause far too much
confusion if we started removing comments from the posted database
before the meeting.
To facilitate the process of dealing with redundant or duplicated
comments, the editors are expected to categorize and sort their
portions of the CRD prior to the meeting, so that duplicates can
be recognized and disposed of quickly. The commenters are also
encouraged to submit lists of their own comments that may be
duplicates of others, thereby speeding things up as well.
Best regards,
- Tom Alexander
Chief Editor, P802.17
-----Original Message-----
From: David V. James [mailto:dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:00 AM
To: Robert D. Love; Tom Alexander
Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Could we discard old (often obsolete) comments?
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
>>>
>>