[GROW] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-12: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 14 December 2017 13:05 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut@ietf.org, Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>, grow-chairs@ietf.org, christopher.morrow@gmail.com, grow@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151325675727.6083.15666522007655187267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:05:57 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/LIHUuqQBHnLhJ9F0phKbfl0Mhjo>
Subject: [GROW] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-12: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-12: 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-grow-bgp-gshut/



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

I also believe this should be standards track. Or is there any good reason why
it should not be standards track similar as other docs that define well known
communities?

[GROW] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
Re: [GROW] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… bruno.decraene