[Pce] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 20 April 2016 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D39312D11E; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 02:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160420094950.32348.90241.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 02:49:50 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/l-aU3u4rEwAj9WOxYV7TmzzKSkY>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-iro-update@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:49:50 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: 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:


I'm surprised by this comment, from the write-up:

    There were nine responses to the survey, but the majority of these
    have not commented on the proposed protocol update.

... even if I also see this in the write-up:

    it was clear that the majority of implementations would either be
    or not significantly affected, by the change in semantics and format
that are 
    proposed in this draft.

Anyway, I'll trust the working group did the right thing.

Regarding the survey issue, my first reaction was to include (parts of)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey-02 in an
On second thought, I'm with Alvaro: no need to mention the survey. The
WHAT is important to document, not HOW you got there.