[nfsv4] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 25 August 2017 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247B51321EB; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis@ietf.org, Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.58.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150367837410.19605.17406018707472110348.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:26:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/yzR_Wcg8Dh-JiBpoTsujRrqKMoM>
Subject: [nfsv4] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:26:14 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13: Yes

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:


This nit didn't stop me from putting the draft on a telechat agenda, but to me,
the new text in -13,

"An Upper Layer Binding specifies this agreement for one version or more
versions of one RPC program"

would be less clunky it read "one or more versions".

I know we talked about that on e-mail, so I'm just adding this to my Yes ballot
so *I* remember to check for it!