IETF conflict review for draft-song-yeti-testbed-experience

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

(Spencer Dawkins) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2018-06-25 for -00)
No email
send info
I had my position on this conflict review as a Discuss, not based on the proposed conflict review category response itself, but on whether the proposed IESG Note should be included as part of the response. 

We've had enough Discussions about that in e-mail and elsewhere, that I'm changing to Yes, and trusting the responsible AD to do the right thing with feedback to the ISE. 

For reference, my original Discuss follows. 

I think this is the right conflict review response, so I should be a Yes about that, but the suggested IESG Note is making statements about what the document is missing (in the IESG's opinion) and whether the document will be useful (in the IESG's opinion), and those statements aren't in the spirit of the conflict reviews that we are asked to provide. 

I'd be fine with including the suggested IESG Note in the datatracker for this draft, so to be clear, I'm only objecting because the IESG Note is included in this conflict review response.

Benjamin Kaduk Yes

(Terry Manderson) Yes

Alvaro Retana (was No Objection) Yes

(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-06-19 for -00)
No email
send info
I agree with Adam's comment

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2018-07-05)
No email
send info
Do we usually cite the WG(s) doing the related work, per RFC 5742?

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Comment (2018-06-19 for -00)
No email
send info
To be clear, while I do not object to this response as formulated, I support the ongoing conversation with the ISE regarding alternate changes to the document that would alleviate the concerns expressed in the proposed additional note.

Martin Vigoureux No Objection