[spring] Barry Leiba's Abstain on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)

"Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 03 February 2016 21:33 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160203213320.26074.13559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 13:33:20 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/L_VSJLmCrBfez3rfKJ74XaDGpWo>
Cc: pifranco@cisco.com, aretana@cisco.com, draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Barry Leiba's Abstain on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Abstain

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-spring-problem-statement/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alia's comment, "This draft doesn't feel as if it will be a
useful RFC in 2 years."  I think this is an example of a document that
should be kept within the working group and used to guide its progress,
but that doesn't seem to be a good candidate for going into the RFC
archival series.  I don't think my view on this should get in the way of
publication, and so my "abstain" position.

[spring] Barry Leiba's Abstain on draft-ietf-spri… Barry Leiba