Subject: [I2nsf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:01:51 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: 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-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/

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

I agree with Mirja's DISCUSS, which appears to have been mostly
addressed. The IESG writeup appears to need updating to match the new
document's intended status.

I am voting No Objection rather than Abstaining for the reasons Ben
outlines in his No Objection.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:35:06 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/

As an FYI , if the ballot is updated, then everyone needs to recast
their ballots, so I updated the datatracker status for the document
and the shepherd can update their report.

I can add some text to my YES ballot to explain the change.

> outlines in his No Objection.

Thanks.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen