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

Comment (2012-11-07)
No email
send info
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

Comment (2012-10-06)
No email
send info
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.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection