Re: [conex] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with COMMENT)

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2015 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD991ACE63; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 05:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7uFOt702kyAs; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 05:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5FBE1B2C75; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 05:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so31321528wic.0; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5p+96Q5nCKsghBbdlZi41VUFJZrRVMeubhppkB113p4=; b=1JYdumCKwAe8A8OUaIm5rvLR8OpeO8WsCtzlWvBnBpi/XMU0N+7rbBoO8IFAumqFqf vPyAIFQYQcOzRB3940iZxI9aL8c36KHHrUcnvTHN3PGP1J9eMAF1KMWokUrxQcg0gEBx W5LJtK6ldRP/6dtmu5y1Kid3mt2/ed55th2RCRkaJAyWtqgSxeTa81c/zFBTe9AU99W8 mkpyUlBwk4x7L1Z2dqMkSFpTrm3HY9Ygz2oxu6pXcWr2dfJvzfggsPBlNGIhvVxVh9cw F24ER0TOGVZ5SwfmMyEbKOMxhTu2RhD1sqAXRq6IBFaJ25i15StBFGl2+UW7HKpbnPe3 0w0g==
X-Received: by 10.180.186.10 with SMTP id fg10mr3234679wic.30.1443703210321; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Martins-MBP.fritz.box ([2001:1a80:280a:ab00:5589:1c2e:a53:2f4e]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id o10sm3017158wia.4.2015.10.01.05.40.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20151001114934.21091.71499.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <560D29A7.3010601@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:40:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151001114934.21091.71499.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/NhSz-VaJbXe1qEnZgs2Heah-mlQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-conex-mobile.ad@ietf.org, conex-chairs@ietf.org, conex@ietf.org, draft-ietf-conex-mobile@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [conex] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/conex/>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:40:14 -0000

Hi Stephen,

Am 01.10.15 um 13:49 schrieb Stephen Farrell:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> - There is a huge amount of sales-speak in this document.  Frankly
> there is so much of that here, and no counterpoint nor real analysis
> that is technically, but fairly, critical of conex, that this seems
> like marketing material. Why are the authors, the WG, the area and
> the IETF producing that kind of thing? I'm sure there are good
> reasons to produce the material, but I'm not at all sure that ought
> be done within the IETF.

I will let this to the authors.

>
> - Same IPR comment as Ben's. Were the WG aware?

Yes. The IPR notifications where posted to the list at the time when 
they showed up.

   Martin