Re: [Tools-discuss] Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10(with COMMENT)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Actually as shepherding AD I find useful to receive a message about a
DISCUSS was cleared. Moreover, you can look at this as a change as the
DISCUSS text disappears.  

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:14 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: 'The IESG'
> Subject: Re: Tim Polk's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10(with COMMENT)
> 
> I do not think that clearing a DISCUSS should generate a 
> message at all unless the content of the COMMENT has changed.
> 
> Russ
> 
> On 12/8/2010 6:19 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Folks, this subject line looks like a bug to me. 
> > 
> > The email thread will be about the COMMENT, not about the 
> No Objection
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Adrian
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> On Behalf 
> >> Of Tim Polk
> >> Sent: 08 December 2010 22:09
> >> To: The IESG
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; 
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Tim Polk's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10:
> >> (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Tim Polk has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10: 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 
> >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >> COMMENT:
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >> In section 3.1, the document state withdrawn is listed but is not 
> >> defined and no reference is given.  Text was added that indicated 
> >> this is self-explanatory, but I must be dense since I still don't 
> >> know what it means,
> >>
> >> I do not want to delay things further, though, and see no harm in 
> >> moving forward with this text.
> > 
> > 
>