Re: [Anima] Why a 2nd Last Call ? Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-24.txt> (An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)) to Proposed Standard

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 07 April 2020 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10B93A07A3; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id omax0mx5Mmug; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4404E3A07A5; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5073897B; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB065F5; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:14:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <431513E0-898B-487A-BFA0-91AFBFFCAD19@cisco.com>
References: <431513E0-898B-487A-BFA0-91AFBFFCAD19@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:14:01 -0400
Message-ID: <24856.1586301241@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/BDUVBfLzt8e4TG1G6qYnxlxjF0I>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Why a 2nd Last Call ? Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-24.txt> (An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:14:13 -0000

Eric Vyncke \(evyncke\) <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > The previous IETF Last Call on this document was in February 2018 for
    > revision -13. Since then, the authors have made substantive changes in
    > the document and we are now at revision -24. The authors and myself
    > believe that the document is ready for IESG evaluation but I, as the
    > shepherding AD, consider that the amount of changes requires a new IETF
    > Last Call.

I have read the latest document, and I am happy with the result.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-