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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 2/5/15 9:29 AM, Thomas Morin wrote:
> Adrian, Pete,
>
> 2015-02-05, Adrian Farrel:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Thanks Adrian.
>
> I came to the same conclusion when preparing the write-up ; this is 
> why I'm confident that the work is well supported.
>
> -Thomas -----Original Message-----

Perfect. Thanks for checking.

pr

>>> 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.
>>
>>
>

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]