A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-05
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-18 for -04)
Unknown
Same comment I had on the security considerations section in draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "there can be no release of existing user data."
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-19 for -04)
Unknown
Nice to see us moving documents to Internet Standard when it's appropriate.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-18 for -04)
Unknown
Just reviewing the changes: 2.8.1: s/in future/future
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-14 for -04)
Unknown
No issues from my perspective given I only reviewed the changes (diff is a wonderful thing) between this draft and RFC 2680.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-20)
Unknown
Thanks for adding in additional security considerations on reconnaissance.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown