IETF conflict review for draft-historic-simple-ip
conflict-review-historic-simple-ip-00

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Ignas Bagdonas Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Suresh Krishnan Yes

Alvaro Retana Yes

Martin Vigoureux Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-10-10)
I initially wondered if this needed some clarification so it could not be confused with that other ''SIP", but I cannot think of anything useful to accomplish that.

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-10-10)
I could see a case for mentioning ipngwg in addition to (or instead of) 6man.

I am somewhat curious whether there are plans to similarly republish SIP-ADDR.

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2018-10-10)
I'm fine with the reply for the conflicit review (because I think it is correct). However, I do wonder about the value of publishing this. If we actually think there is a value in publishing this, we could also publish this as historic in the IETF stream.

Adam Roach No Objection