IETF conflict review for draft-historic-simple-ip
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
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
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 Kühlewind No Objection
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.