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

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:37:01 +0100

Hi Ben,

Am 21.01.16 um 00:20 schrieb Ben Campbell:
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does this really obsolete all the affected documents, in addition to the
> changing them to "historical"?

Yes, for the listed ones.
This is to ensure that the metadata of these historical RFCs is pointing 
to RFC(draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03) as obsoleting them.

Just to be clear for anybody out there, leaving no room for any doubt :)

Thanks,

   Martin

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:20:35 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-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-tcpm-undeployed/

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:59:39 -0600

On 20 Jan 2016, at 23:37, Martin Stiemerling wrote:

> This is to ensure that the metadata of these historical RFCs is 
> pointing to RFC(draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03) as obsoleting them.
>

Okay--as long as it was on purpose :-)