Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:55:37 +0200

Am 27.05.15 um 23:41 schrieb Ben Campbell:

>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The ballot and shepherd writeup say "informational", but the document
> says "Standards Track." I assume the former is intended.

It is Stds Track. The Informational is a left over, corrected in the 
tracker.

The reason is that this draft is updating RFC 5661 which is Standards Track.

Thanks for spotting this.

   Martin

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:05:25 +0200

Last briefly discuss this during the call and see if the IESG agrees, as 
the the IETF LC was saying information RFC.

Otherwise, I might need to rerun the IETF LC, but we as the IESG can 
agree on the standards level.

Thanks,

   Martin

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:41:41 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: 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-nfsv4-layout-types/

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:54:44 -0500

> Thanks for spotting this.

Ah, I suspect people reviewed it as an informational, since it was 
listed in the informational section. I don't think that changes my 
review, but it might change others.