Subject: [mile] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 06:43:35 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: 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-mile-rfc5070-bis/

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

I concur with Alissa's and Alexey's discuss points.

Additionally, I think the rest of the points in Robert Spark's secdir
review[1] deserve responses.

The shepherd writeup mentions a desire for more XML review. Did that
occur? (I note that it also says the XML had been mechanically
verified.)

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/0Io60Sdn--hRzQWN3Q0keCYIA1w

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:04:54 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Hi Ben,

I included that in my review and compared it to the UML as well.  I mentioned this in the ballot write up. I believe Take did this too as he caught an error last night.

Thanks for your review!
Kathleen 
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:29:29 -0400

On 1 Jun 2016, at 10:04, [email-masked] wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> I included that in my review and compared it to the UML as well.  I 
> mentioned this in the ballot write up. I believe Take did this too as 
> he caught an error last night.

Yes, you did. Thanks for reminding me to carefully read the ballot write 
ups :-)

(In my defense, I reviewed this on an airplane with only intermittent 
network access.)

---

From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:00:29 +0000

Hello Ben,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 10:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; mile-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mile] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-
> bis-22: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> 
> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> >> this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Please refer to
> >> I concur with Alissa's 

Alissa Cooper's Discuss and Comments were addressed -23.  The details can be found at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/9VxSnr0KLVy6YPPrpIORm4bxbIM

> >> and Alexey's discuss points.

Alexey Melnikov's Discuss and Comments were addressed in -23.  The details can be found at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/-sBIaoZM0eSJB0pAk5P1i-kCHbs

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/3AOucFDp9pGI5uhsSeSAWtud80c

> >> review[1] deserve responses.

Robert Spark's feedback was address in -23.  The details can be found at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/w_yn_srx7W8ALoBw8Kp3e26-9fA

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/cz8_ZoyVYZX88QUoqeEgZQFUrYE

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/uPHPtq_PvUvxKTP4jKA5x6_y2Jg

Thank you for the review.

Roman