[bess] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with COMMENT)

"Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 05 February 2015 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16431A008B; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:53:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 d30Y_lyKHLfM; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336621A0081; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:53:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150205005339.656.41179.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:53:39 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/AcfD2fTnNnh8qqo_RHxy_2S7sgM>
Cc: thomas.morin@rd.francetelecom.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community.all@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:53:40 -0000

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the ballot:

  Opposition to the proposal was initially expressed by one contributor,

  but there was good support for adoption and no particular follow-up 
  from that contributor.

I'm glad someone wrote it down, but it's not exactly confidence
inspiring. Was this just random opposition without explanation, or did
the person have a point and it got addressed to the chairs' satisfaction,
or did something get dropped? I expect it's that the concern was
addressed reasonably, but the above doesn't exactly say that.