Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

Jie > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM > >> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart > >> Bryant > >> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@iet

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Stewart, On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > > This is Mirja's comment, but ... > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind > wrote: > >> Mirja Kühlewind has ente

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

This is Mirja's comment, but ... On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email

Re: [OPSAWG] (Also Ben Campbell's and Alexey's) Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Eliot, On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Responding to Spencer, Ben, and Alexy (in order). > > On 16.04.18 21:09, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes > > When responding,

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

I haven't balloted yet, and this is EKR's ballot thread, but one point is worth bringing up here ... On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Hi Eliot, > > Thanks for continuing the conversation. My question is how this fits into > the system as a whole. > > ISTM

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Benoit, On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed text

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 for 2 so far today. Are we still tuning text in this draft? https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to publish, or agree to send

Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with COMMENT)

Following up on an obscure point ... On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >