Re: [mile] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with COMMENT)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: 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-mile-rfc5070-bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I concur with Alissa's and Alexey's discuss points.
> 
> Additionally, I think the rest of the points in Robert Spark's secdir
> review[1] deserve responses.
> 
> The shepherd writeup mentions a desire for more XML review. Did that
> occur? (I note that it also says the XML had been mechanically
> verified.)

Hi Ben,

I included that in my review and compared it to the UML as well.  I mentioned this in the ballot write up. I believe Take did this too as he caught an error last night.

Thanks for your review!
Kathleen 
> 
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/0Io60Sdn--hRzQWN3Q0keCYIA1w
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> mile@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile