Re: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben

Sorry. My bad. Misread the email.

Thanks
Parag

On 2017-08-30, 3:34 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

    My ballot comments were for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03, not draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-05 (which is already approved an in the hands of the RFC editor.)

    Thanks!

    Ben.

    > On Aug 30, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Parag Jain (paragj) <paragj@cisco.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Ben
    > 
    > I ran idnits on the draft and did not find any issues. Pls see the output below.
    > 
    > Thanks
    > Parag
    > 
    > idnits 2.14.01  /var/www/.idnits
    > 
    > 
    > tmp/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-05.txt:
    > 
    >  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
    >  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
    >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >     No issues found here.
    > 
    >  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
    >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >     No issues found here.
    > 
    >  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
    >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >     No issues found here.
    > 
    >  Miscellaneous warnings:
    >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >  -- The document date (August 21, 2017) is 9 days in the past.  Is this         ⇐ this is expected and nogt an issue.
    >     intentional?
    > 
    > 
    >  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
    >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    >     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
    > 
    >     No issues found here.
    > 
    >     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
    > 
    > 
    > On 2017-08-28, 10:43 PM, "Pals on behalf of Ben Campbell" <pals-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
    > 
    >    Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
    >    draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: 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-pals-p2mp-pw/
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >    COMMENT:
    >    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >    Please check idnits. It flags some issues that should be resolved, especially
    >    2119 language issues.
    > 
    >    The security considerations seem inadequate. I'm no expert here, but it seems
    >    like adding p2mp support in addition to p2p support has a good chance of
    >    creating some new considerations. If it really doesn't, it would be helpful to
    >    see arguments to that effect.
    > 
    > 
    >    _______________________________________________
    >    Pals mailing list
    >    Pals@ietf.org
    >    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
    > 
    > 