Subject: [mile] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 15:30:52 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-10: 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-mile-jsoniodef/

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

Thank you for this document -- like Linda Dunbar (the OpsDir reviewer), I'm
wondering why this is Standards Track -- I looked in the Shepherds Write Up
hoping for some clue, but was unsuccessful finding any justification....

---

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:16:05 +0100

Hi all,

This is another recommended mapping of a data model defined in PS document, so I think having this document as a PS is also appropriate.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:22:26 -0400

> This is another recommended mapping of a data model defined in PS document, so I think having this document as a PS is also appropriate.

Ok, I'll buy that...
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