Hi, Paul, On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Black, David <david.bl...@emc.com> wrote:
> Paul, > > > > So, (as WG chair for this paragraph only), thank you for your input, > but this is a > > single draft for very good reasons. > > > </WG chair hat> > > > > Thanks for the explanation. The thing about genart reviews is that the > > reviewer doesn't have the context that the authors do, and maybe not the > > context that likely readers will have. I certainly won't second guess > > you on that. > > And double-checking this sort of thing is one of the purposes of Gen-ART > reviews (said as a long-time former Gen-ART reviewer), so thanks for > bringing this topic up - if nothing else, we now have this concern and > response documented in email archives for IESG review of this draft ;-). David beat me to it, but I do want to say that (as another long-time former Gen-ART reviewer) I'm very interested in FIRST guesses from reviewers who haven't been involved in every discussion of every revision of the draft. I'm sure there's a forest behind all these trees someplace :-) Spencer
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
