Re: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)

Kevin Ma J <kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com> Sat, 23 April 2016 17:14 UTC

From: Kevin Ma J <kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRm0D6ZUvgGXLqcUOIU/ibnnKYIp+TdM9wgARXJ6A=
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:14:19 +0000
Message-ID: <A419F67F880AB2468214E154CB8A556206DA02F3@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <20160420201229.808.63882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/-mE4rXlDZ1YdTx9ZFm6QRfZnCEc>
Cc: "cdni-chairs@ietf.org" <cdni-chairs@ietf.org>, "cdni@ietf.org" <cdni@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Ben,

  We have restructured the document; hopefully the -17 update addresses your comments.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Ma J
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:43 PM
> To: 'Ben Campbell'; The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics@ietf.org; cdni-
> chairs@ietf.org; cdni@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
>   Thanks for the review.
> 
>   Understood on your comments.  We will follow up with Alissa and Mirja
> and try to clean up the doc, which will hopefully address your concerns as
> well.
> 
> thanx!
> 
> --  Kevin J. Ma
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 4:12 PM
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics@ietf.org; Francois
> Le
> > Faucheur; cdni-chairs@ietf.org; flefauch@cisco.com; cdni@ietf.org
> > Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> > capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: 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 https://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:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-
> > semantics/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I agree with Alissa's discuss and comments (and transitively, Mirja's
> > comments). Specifically, I agree that the object definitions seem like
> > they should be PS, and that much of the motivational text seems like
> > input to the working group process, not output from it.
> >
> > Additionally, I find the mix of using 2119 language for implementation
> > requirements and requirements on protocol work confusing--especially in
> > those sections where 2119 keywords are intermixed with the
> aforementioned
> > motivational text.
> >

[CDNi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell
Re: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Kevin Ma J
Re: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Kevin Ma J