[i2rs] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

"Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 17 February 2016 18:12 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160217181236.15542.41958.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:12:36 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/mChHQDR1XVZ9BTEsbdd_UxdWuR4>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org, bill.wu@huawei.com, draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement@ietf.org, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [i2rs] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: 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-i2rs-problem-statement/



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

I have sympathy with Álvaro's position, and thought about abstaining as
well, but in the end I did find that the discussion in Sections 1 thru 4
has archival value, as guidance to people who are eventually reading the
set of I2RS documents.  Sure, this could all be part of the architecture
document, but if the working group's decision is to separate it out, I'm
OK with that.

[i2rs] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-i… Barry Leiba