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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Pete,

I looked through the archive.
The comments from the contributor were responded to with a polite email explaining how the authors disagreed and why.
The contributor (whose original comments were more like "I would do it different") did not follow up, and in the absence of that the response form the authors seems to have reasonably addressed the comments.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 05 February 2015 00:54
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-
> 09: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.