Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Marius Georgescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Ben, > > Thank you for your review. > Many of the BMWG RFCs I've read use 2119 keywords for the reporting format. > In our understanding, the reason is that the output report of a tester is supposed to follow the format recommendations. Okay. I just wanted to make sure they were used "on purpose". Thanks! Ben. > > Best regards, > Marius >> On Jun 8, 2017, at 3:14 PM, Marius Georgescu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: 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-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -7.2, Reporting Format: Is it conventional to use 2119 keywords to describe >> report formatting? (Or is this paragraph really about content, rather than >> format?) >> >> (Comment repeats for other "format" related paragraphs.) >> > _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg