IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
(Spencer Dawkins) Yes
(Suresh Krishnan) Yes
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Adam Roach) Yes
(Deborah Brungard) No Objection
(Ben Campbell) No Objection
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?