Subject: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-netconf-18-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:46:28 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-netconf-18-13: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netconf/

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

I agree with Spencer's comments.

Also, I have trouble suspending disbelief with those milestone dates.
(Especially the ones in the past.) If those are real, it means the WG will be
doing lots of work in parallel over the next couple of months. Is that
reasonable?

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:08:26 +0200

Ben,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netconf/
I (slightly) modified the milestone dates.
Note that many documents have been worked on for some time.
For example, this "Provide a revised version of NETCONF Access Control 
Model (RFC 6536)" document went through a last call already, as was 
already part of the previous charter.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:15:32 -0400

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Ben,

[...]

> For example, this "Provide a revised version of NETCONF Access Control Model (RFC 6536)" document went through a last call already, as was already part of the previous charter.

Thanks, the new dates at least enter the realm of the "possible". I'll leave the "probably" up to you.  :-)

Ben.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:27:49 +0200

Ben,
> Thanks, the new dates at least enter the realm of the "possible". I'll leave the "probably" up to you.  :-)
I spoke to one key contributor recently, and I have high expectations.

Maybe ... this message is not addressed to you Ben, but to him ;-) No 
pressure ...

Regards, Benoit