Skip to main content

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?"

Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
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"
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-04-20) Unknown
Further to Martin's comment: I'd say it should be in the Abstract and Introduction, as well.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-04-23) Unknown
What Martin and Barry said.
This would be consistent with previous ISE publications (ex: RFC 6812)
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard 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

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
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.