[ipwave] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 06 April 2022 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: its@ietf.org
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5C03A1A13; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking@ietf.org, ipwave-chairs@ietf.org, its@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <164925772715.21160.4361071853387438334@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 08:08:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/XkG0elKhJSC2DBdlKkwL4mdlTwQ>
Subject: [ipwave] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:08:47 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I support Roman's and Eric's DISCUSS positions.  I, too, found the line between
examples and gaps/requirements to be blurry, at best.

This document lists more than 40 Normative references!  Most (all?) of them
point at examples of potential technology or are there as background.  For
example, the first few point at MLD/MLDv2, OLSR, NEMO, and a couple of
documents about terminology and documentation -- all clearly informative.

This is how the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [1]
characterizes them:

   Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general
   categories: "normative" and "informative". Normative references specify
   documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology
   in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology
   in the new RFC to work. An informative reference is not normative;
   rather, it only provides additional information. For example, an
   informative reference might provide background or historical information.
   Informative references are not required to implement the technology in
   the RFC.

Please examine the references and classify them accordingly.