[Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AA1127B52; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, hannes@gredler.at, isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149565973711.8685.11434741509294820341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:02:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/OGB6BuQZClf5A9WFOKnG6XrRFBQ>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:02:17 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: 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:


I support the various DISCUSS points concerning the security

I note that the remaining authors have made their IPR statements, so that
discussion is moot.

I share some of the discomfort concerning the shepherd report. I'm
willing to accept that the shepherd is in the rough, but it would be nice
to have stronger evidence of that, perhaps in the form of an opinion from
the other chair. To quote a wise area director: I leave it to the
responsible AD to do the right thing, whatever that might be.