Re: [radext] please check draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-11 was Re: Issues with draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-09

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Jouni,

Thanks for letting me know.
The document status justt moved from IESG evaluation/AD follow up to 
IESG evaluation, and the draft is on the IESG agenda for Feb 21st.
Let me point the YES ballot from Barry, along with his comment.

    *Comment (2013-02-05)*

    I had an excellent set of exchanges with Alan Dekok, in which he sorted out all
    my issues (reflected in the -11) version.  There remain a couple of minor
    things we disagree on, but that will happen, and they are minor.  Thanks very
    much to Alan for the quick turnaround and good work.


Regards, Benoit

> Folks,
>
> I take the silence as a sign of agreement. The document is good to
> move forward on the IESG process.
>
> - Jouni
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Everybody has already seen the proposal from Barry - thanks for it ;)
>>
>> So lets make it official. Since we all have seen the changes and the
>> discussion that lead to those, we should be OK with a one week review
>> time. Every WG member is encouraged to verify the latest -11 version
>> of the I-D whether the _changes_ are from -09. This is not a place for
>> new material etc.
>>
>> Express your OK/NOK/opinion by 13th Feb. If everything is fine, our
>> AD can do the required steps regarding IESG telechat agenda and we
>> are one step closer to publication.
>>
>> - Jouni & Mauricio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'll go through the diffs between -09 and -11 now, while I wait for my
>>>>> flight to HKG, and double-check that we're all set on the other
>>>>> points.
>>>> Verified.  Please make any further changes that my last message moves
>>>> you to, and then make sure the working group is OK with the changes.
>>> FWIW, my suggestion:
>>>
>>> 1. Alan posts a -12 version if he has further changes.
>>> 2. Alan posts a message to the radext list, saying that he's made
>>> quite a bunch of changes in response to IESG Evaluation, and the WG
>>> should review them.  Include a URL for the diff between -09 and -12
>>> (or -11).
>>> 3. The chairs post a message to the radext list asking for any
>>> objections to the changes to be posted by, say, 15 Feb.  The chairs
>>> might specifically note that this is a call for review of the changes
>>> only.
>>> 4. Benoit sticks the document on the 21 Feb telechat agenda (and
>>> remember to go back afterward and remove the "returning item" flag).
>>> I suggest doing this now; no need to wait.
>>> 5. When 15 Feb rolls around, Benoit changes the status back to "IESG
>>> Evaluation".
>>>
>>> Of course, this all assumes no significant objections from the WG, but
>>> you all know how to deal with that if it happens.  :-)
>>>
>>> Barry
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> radext mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>> _______________________________________________
>> radext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>