Re: [netext] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08: (with COMMENT)

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 30 September 2013 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8683C21F87B7; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FFtiw106nE9S; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D1F21F893E; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-125-188.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.125.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r8UEEdYI061201 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:14:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <52498754.2050601@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:14:44 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <20130926112713.29653.90936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130926112713.29653.90936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 71.170.125.188 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:49 -0000

On 9/26/13 6:27 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08: 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 http://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:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Robert Sparks raised a clarity issue in the document in his Gen-ART
> review, and there has been discussion with the authors to correct the
> issue, and the correction has made it to a private version of the draft.
> I wish that version would be published so that we could deal with as
> clean document as possible, free of issues that have already been
> resolved.
My comments were addressed at -09.
>
> (If you had no other issues to resolve, I'd probably raise this as a
> discuss, because I'd want to avoid accidentally approving the document
> without the changes making it to the last version.)
>
>