IETF conflict review for draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma
conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-00
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Yes
(2015-04-20)
Unknown
A note to the ISE: It would be much better to state in the document title that this is IBM's protocol work, i.e., change the title from "Shared Memory Communications over RDMA" to "IBM's Shared Memory Communications over RDMA"
Yes
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2015-04-20)
Unknown
Further to Martin's comment: I'd say it should be in the Abstract and Introduction, as well.
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2015-04-23)
Unknown
What Martin and Barry said. This would be consistent with previous ISE publications (ex: RFC 6812)
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2015-04-22)
Unknown
- I agree with Martin's suggestion - I think it's a fine thing if esp. such detailed protocols that are vendor specific are more obviously vendor specific. - This is a bit of a monster but (flicking through it only) looks entirely well worked out. That usually makes me wonder why a spec has been taken via the ISE route. It might be good for the ISE (or authors) to try to somewhere explain the logic for that.