IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis
conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-03-16
|
00 | Amy Vezza | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: nmrg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis.all@ietf.org, granville@inf.ufrgs.br, nmrg@irtf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: nmrg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis.all@ietf.org, granville@inf.ufrgs.br, nmrg@irtf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-04 The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-04 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'General Gap Analysis for Autonomic Networking' as an Informational RFC. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the ANIMA working group, but this relationship does not prevent publishing. At the time of the ANIMA working group creation, this work was well underway, and was therefore mentioned in the ANIMA charter. The ANIMA working group will build on the gap analysis in this document. The IESG would also like the IRTF to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log. The IESG review is documented at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis/ The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743 Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2015-03-16
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2015-03-16
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-16
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] During my review of this document I noticed the following issues that the authors and ISE may want to address. - Since the … [Ballot comment] During my review of this document I noticed the following issues that the authors and ISE may want to address. - Since the draft mentions: The terminology defined in [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] is used in this document. I was expecting [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] to be a normative reference. - Like I mentioned in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions/ballot/#benoit-claise, be consistent with the terminology capitalization. I see for example "Autonomic Networking", but some other term are not capitalized (autonomic functions, autonomic service agents) - For example, currently, a light load is often assumed in network design because there is no mechanism to properly handle a sudden traffic flood. It is therefore common to avoid network crashes caused by traffic overload by configuring idle resources, with an overprovisioning ratio of at least 2 being normal [Xiao02]. Network crashes due to traffic overload? This looks like a bug to me :-) Network congestion, maybe? |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00.txt |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from Needs Shepherd |
2015-03-12
|
00 | Benoît Claise | Shepherding AD changed to Benoit Claise |
2015-03-05
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-03-12 |
2015-03-05
|
00 | Lars Eggert | IETF conflict review requested |