IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages
conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-00
Yes
(Adam Roach)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benjamin Kaduk)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Adam Roach Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-01-09)
Sent
A couple of editorial comments about the draft itself: - It looks like some abbreviations would benefit from expansion on first mention (e.g. CCNx). - Should we start encouraging individual submissions that use normative language to move to the RFC 8174 boilerplate?
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent