[Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 08 April 2021 05:56 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A363A3AFE; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 22:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161786136489.14717.13748090760886627949@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:56:04 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/uCCnBAJHi8xYpwE5Xy6QxTIP5Lg>
Subject: [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 05:56:05 -0000
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: 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-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A note for the IESG: This is in the shepherd writeup: -- BEGIN -- (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. -- END -- As I said on another document on this week's docket, this is increasingly common. There are three questions being asked, but only one is being answered, and not the most important one at that. I'd really like it if this started getting caught someplace in the review process before IESG Evaluation. Or, if we don't actually care about the answer anymore, we should simplify or remove the question.
- [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ie… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker