Subject: [bmwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:42:10 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and comments. One nit:

s/for a future draft/for a future document/

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:04:39 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv/

Good catch! Thank you for helping improve the document - I think that
the changes make it much better.

Dear authors, please note this to flag for the RFC Editor ( will as
well, but just in case).

W
-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:09:33 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:05 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-
> opnfv-04: (with COMMENT)
> 
...
> the changes make it much better.
[ACM] 
+1, and for seeing the value in this draft as a contribution/RFC.
Benoit's comments helped capture that value more accurately,
too.

> Dear authors, please note this to flag for the RFC Editor ( will as
[ACM] 
Will do, at AUTH48 or sooner.

Al