IETF conflict review for draft-mme-trill-fcoe
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
(Ralph Droms) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection
The working group have been asked again about this draft and it is clear that there is no TRILL WG interest in working on this technology. Thank you for consulting them again.
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
My Comments are by way of a mutter that I hope the ISE will note and consider for future documents on the Independent Stream. No action from the IESG or the document authors is requested. --- The ISE's note says: > This draft was discussed on the trill list, no objections > to the publication of this draft in the Independent Stream > were raised. This is probably a little simplistic. It is true that the WG was notified of the existence of the draft and offered the chance to object to publication. But the I-D was not discussed in any sense. There are a total of 3 emails about the draft in the archive and they are all notifications from the authors. --- While I don't disapprove of publication of this I-D on the Independent Stream, I have become accustomed to notes explaining why documents are presented via the ISE rather than through the working group.