IETF conflict review for draft-historic-simple-ip
conflict-review-historic-simple-ip-00
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
No Objection
(Adam Roach)
(Deborah Brungard)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-10-10)
Sent
I initially wondered if this needed some clarification so it could not be confused with that other ''SIP", but I cannot think of anything useful to accomplish that.
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-10-10)
Sent
I could see a case for mentioning ipngwg in addition to (or instead of) 6man. I am somewhat curious whether there are plans to similarly republish SIP-ADDR.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-10-10)
Sent
I'm fine with the reply for the conflicit review (because I think it is correct). However, I do wonder about the value of publishing this. If we actually think there is a value in publishing this, we could also publish this as historic in the IETF stream.