Subject: Reply to LC comments on draft-secretaries-good-practices-06

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:29:11 +0100

All,

thank you for your reviews and comments on 
draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.
Sorry for the delayed response.

Summarizing the comments:

* We noticed some opposition to moving this document as a BCP updating 
RFC 2418.
We have decided no to progress it as such. We have thus removed the 
normative section (Section 2.), changed the intended status to 
Informational, removed the update to RFC 2418 in the header and 
Abstract, and have moved RFC 2418 as an Informative Reference.

* We understood some clarifications were needed to more precisely 
position the content of this document with regards to WG chairs 
responsibilities.
* We also understood that some clarifications were needed with regards 
to the relevancy of WG Secretaries, as well a who has responsibility 
over their appointment and the delegation.
There were bits and pieces of text covering some of these points. Text 
was also missing. We have regrouped all the relevant text elements under 
a new section (Applicability Statement) with the objective of clarifying 
the blurry points.

* In response to specific comments we have also clarified the elements 
pertaining to access to tools.

* Finally, we have taken into account a good number of rewording 
suggestions.

I am ready to go through each comment that was made, if desired.

We have published a new version of the draft capturing all that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07

Thank you

-m