IETF conflict review for draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

(Richard Barnes) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-29)
No email
send info
Taking into account that draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-logging, referred to in the draft, is now draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-04, I wonder whether we shouldn't add BEHAVE in " that this work is related to IETF work done in the
SUNSET4 WG". On the other hand, BEHAVE is now closed.

Not too sure. Regards, Benoit

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-27)
No email
send info
I'll go with Spencer's assessment

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection