Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] Request to progress I-D draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions to RFC editor

[<Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>]

Hi Aaron,

I do not believe that changes are needed at this time to the I-D.
The nits that were identified can be addressed duing the rfc ed process.

-Basavaraj


On 5/1/09 2:09 PM, "ext Aaron Falk" <falk at bbn.com> wrote:

> Hi Rajeev-
> 
> I didn't see any responses.  If your decision was that no changes were
> needed, I'm not challenging it.  (Although, it is the shepherd's
> responsibility to ensure the reviewers are aware of that decision.)  I
> just want to avoid substantive changes once the doc goes to RFC Ed.
> 
> --aaron
> 
> Rajeev Koodli wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Aaron,
>> 
>> we also responded to the comments. I didn't think that a revision was
>> necessary. I will go back and have another look.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> -Rajeev
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On *Thu, 4/30/09, Aaron Falk /<falk at ISI.EDU>/* wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>     From: Aaron Falk <falk at ISI.EDU>
>>     Subject: Re: [IRSG] Request to progress I-D
>>     draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions to RFC editor
>>     To: "Rajeev Koodli" <rajeev.koodli at gmail.com>
>>     Cc: irsg at ISI.EDU, mobopts at irtf.org, Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
>>     Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 5:55 AM
>> 
>>     Hi Rajeev, Basavaraj-
>> 
>>     The poll was conducted on rev 12 of the doc.  I saw substantive
>>     comments
>>     (i.e., beyond typos) from Wes Eddy and Stephen Farrell.  The current
>>     version in the ID repository is still 12.  So, my assumption is no
>>     changes to the draft have been made in response to the comments.
>>     So, am
>>     I confused?  Did the comments result in no changes?
>> 
>>     --aaron
>> 
>>     Rajeev Koodli wrote:
>>> Hi Aaron,
>>> 
>>> author's perspective: We did respond to all the comments and
>>     there was
>>> subsequent response which indicated that the ID is ready for
>>> publication.
>>> 
>>> A couple of typos were caught which can be fixed in RFC editor's
>>     review.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> -Rajeev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Aaron Falk <falk at isi.edu
>>     </mc/compose?to=falk at isi.edu>> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
>>     </mc/compose?to=Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com> wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IRSG poll for I-D:
>>     draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions has
>>>>> been completed. Other than a few nits which can be addressed
>>     as part of the
>>>>> RFC-editor process, there were no objections to publishing the
>>     document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The conclusion is that the I-D is ready for publication.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In my role as the shepherd for this I-D, I recommend
>>     progressing this I-D to
>>>>> the RFC editor for publication.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Basavaraj
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>      
>>>> Hi Basavaraj-
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn't look like the draft has been revised to respond to the
>>>> comments from the IRSG review.  Wes Eddy and Stephen Farrell sent
>>>> substantive but non-blocking comments.  Please respond to those
>>     that
>>>> before requesting publication.  (The RFC Editor's 'Authors 48 Hours
>>>> review' isn't intended to do another editing pass but to fix
>>     editorial
>>>> issues that come up during RFC preparation.)
>>>> 
>>>> When that's done, I'd like to ask that you prepare a 'request to
>>>> publish' message that has a little more about the review
>>     history of the
>>>> document.  I'm attaching a message from another doc so you can see
>>>> what's expected.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know if you have questions.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> --aaron
>>>> 
>>>>    
>>>>> Aaron: This is a request to publish the ICCRG's document
>>>>> draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-06 as an Informational RFC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The draft has been revised based on a number of reviews,
>>>>> and the latest version incorporates editorial marks that
>>>>> were submitted by Stephen Farrell and Juergen Shoenwaelder
>>>>> during IRSG Review / Poll, where 2 "Ready to Publish" votes
>>>>> were received, and none otherwise.  Prior to this, the
>>>>> document has been reviewed and modified based on other IRSG
>>>>> member reviews (Sally Floyd and Mark Allman) during the
>>>>> ICCRG process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> During the ICCRG's development of the document, specific
>>>>> public reviews that changes were incorporated from were
>>>>> submitted on the ICCRG list by:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Rex Buddenberg
>>>>> - Mitchell Erblichs
>>>>> - Lachlan Andrew
>>>>> - Sally Floyd
>>>>> - Gorry Fairhurst
>>>>> - Lars Eggert
>>>>> - Mark Allman
>>>>> 
>>>>> The issue tracker entry includes the versions of the
>>>>> draft since IRSG review started, and the reviews from
>>>>> Juergen and Stephen:
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/25
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>      
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mobopts mailing list
>>>> Mobopts at irtf.org </mc/compose?to=Mobopts at irtf.org>
>>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>>> 
>>>>    
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     IRSG mailing list
>>     IRSG at mailman.isi.edu </mc/compose?to=IRSG at mailman.isi.edu>
>>     http://mailman..isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg
>>     <http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg>
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mobopts mailing list
>> Mobopts at irtf.org
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>