Re: [rmcat] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-09: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for noticing, somehow I didn’t even noticed that there are more than 5 authors… This document was merged out of two documents (as now also indicated in the “replaces” section). I will check if that is still the right thing to do and update the shepherd write-up accordingly if needed.

Maybe we should add a separate point on this in the write-up?

Mirja

P.S.: We will also remove the unnecessary reference. This is a left-over from before the merge and we fixed some of them but overlooked this one.



> On 5. Mar 2020, at 06:10, Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-09: 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-rmcat-wireless-tests/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the work that went into creating this document.
> 
> ID Nits correctly reports:
> 
>  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements' is defined on line
>     998, but no explicit reference was found in the text
> 
> As a note for the AD: I can’t find a justification in the ballot or shepherd’s
> writeup for why this document has six authors instead of a smaller number of
> editors and a list of contributors. It would be nice to capture the exception
> rationale in one of those two places for posterity.
> 
> 
> 
>