RE: Interim Meeting

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

This is the last opportunity I'll have to respond for what may be a few
days.  I'm in the middle of a home move, and I have to take myself offline
for a while.

I don't understand why my position is unclear.  It's included in the thread
below.

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Seng/Personal [mailto:James@Seng.cc]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 10:58 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Interim Meeting


Scott,

Claim what you like about the IETF process. I cannot deny that you have
follow the process and I thank you for that.

But the facts remains that a lot of registries have not read your I-D.
So the question is "Are you interested in their feedback?" or "Are you
more interested to follow process and get your I-D thru?"

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: RE: Interim Meeting


> James,
>
> The fact that the requirements document was published as an I-D speaks
for
> itself WRT the intended review community.  If my desire was for review
only
> by the customers of VeriSign-GRS it wouldn't have been published as an
I-D.
>
>
> What I have said is that this document has been available for review
to the
> IETF community at large since March 2000.  It is completely incorrect
for
> anyone to say that they haven't had an opportunity to review this
draft.
> Assertions to the contrary are baseless.
>
> Let me be clear about what I mean: the requirements draft has been out
for
> broad IETF review for 10+ months.  If people are only now taking
notice
> because we are forming a WG, it would be more productive to stop
complaining
> and get comments in _now_ than to insist that there hasn't been ample
time
> for review.
>
> <Scott/>