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

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
> 
> 