Subject: [bess] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:53:39 -0800

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/

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

In the ballot:

  Opposition to the proposal was initially expressed by one contributor,

  but there was good support for adoption and no particular follow-up 
  from that contributor.

I'm glad someone wrote it down, but it's not exactly confidence
inspiring. Was this just random opposition without explanation, or did
the person have a point and it got addressed to the chairs' satisfaction,
or did something get dropped? I expect it's that the concern was
addressed reasonably, but the above doesn't exactly say that.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:26:24 -0000

Pete,

I looked through the archive.
The comments from the contributor were responded to with a polite email explaining how the authors disagreed and why.
The contributor (whose original comments were more like "I would do it different") did not follow up, and in the absence of that the response form the authors seems to have reasonably addressed the comments.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 05 February 2015 00:54
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-
> 09: (with COMMENT)
>

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:26:24 -0000

Pete,

Adrian

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:29:39 +0100

Adrian, Pete,

> The contributor (whose original comments were more like "I would do it different") did not follow up, and in the absence of that the response form the authors seems to have reasonably addressed the…

Thanks Adrian.

I came to the same conclusion when preparing the write-up ; this is why 
I'm confident that the work is well supported.

-Thomas

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:29:39 +0100

Adrian, Pete,

Thanks Adrian.

-Thomas

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:21:39 -0600

On 2/5/15 9:29 AM, Thomas Morin wrote:
>> The comments from the contributor were responded to with a polite 
>> email explaining how the authors disagreed and why.
>> The contributor (whose original comments were more like "I would do 
>> it different") did not follow up, and in the absence of that the 
>> response form the authors seems to have reasonably addressed the 
>> comments.
>
> Thanks Adrian.
>
> I came to the same conclusion when preparing the write-up ; this is 
> why I'm confident that the work is well supported.
>
> -Thomas -----Original Message-----

Perfect. Thanks for checking.

pr

>>> Please refer to 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:21:39 -0600

pr