IETF conflict review for draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping
conflict-review-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-00
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-11-20)
Unknown
To Pete's point: DNSOP would be more appropriate anyway, since this document is talking about stuff happening in the real live Internet of today.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-11-19)
Unknown
I get what Pete is saying in his DISCUSS, but didn't we just say something like "related to IETF work done in the concluded DNSEXT working group" the last time we talked about this for a similar case? I don't care, but if the difference between the proposed response and Pete's suggested response matters, I'd lean towards having a different response for a core Internet protocol that we're not actively working on now, and for some random protocol we've never heard of before.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Abstain
Abstain
(2013-11-21)
Unknown
We need to work out with the IAB and the ISE what 5742 choice 2 is supposed to mean.