[Softwires] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-yang-14: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietf.org
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFC1130EAB; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 22:51:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-yang@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, jiangsheng@huawei.com, softwires@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154710307353.4881.1445295390693117530.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:51:13 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/p7Y9poMCqWyzrHhia3KqW2ktkS0>
Subject: [Softwires] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-yang-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:51:13 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-14: 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 support Alissa's discuss.

Further to Benjamin's discuss, I note that the YANG modules in this document
indicate two editors (I. Farrer and M. Bocadair) and five authors. Assuming
this distinction is intentional, RFC 7322 points to a clear resolution:

   If there is a
   request for more than five authors, the stream-approving body needs
   to consider if one or two editors should have primary responsibility
   for this document, with the other individuals listed in the
   Contributors or Acknowledgements section.

Based on the RFC 7322 text, I suspect that the best approach is moving the
five non-editors to a "Contributors" section.