IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-dtnrg-dgram-clayer
conflict-review-irtf-dtnrg-dgram-clayer-02
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Ted Lemon)
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-08-24 for -00)
Unknown
I agree with the conflict review for this document but note that "Additionally, the IESG requests that the comments in the datatracker history for this draft be considered." may be confusing given the absence of such comments.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-08-27)
Unknown
I am surprised that there is no consideration of PR-SCTP (RFC3758) as this seems to have the properties that the researchers are looking for.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(2013-08-27)
Unknown
I'm just recusing as I'm the relevant RG co-chair. I do think this one's just fine but it might be better for me to keep out of it, just in case some other RG document sometime is more problematic. (BTW, I've done this for previous DTNRG docs too.) S.