Subject: [OPSAWG] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:17:10 -0800

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases/

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

The write-up says something about additional reviews. Does this include
reviews by an outside party of the IETF that, for instance, an entity
that operates building automation systems?

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:27:20 -0500

> draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: No Objection

[ SNIP ]
Apologies, I (doc shepherd) was unclear - the additional reviews was
Thomas and Pascal asking participants in 6TiSCH and 6lo (IPv6 over
Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes) to review.

-- 
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: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:27:20 -0500

[ SNIP ]