Skip to main content

The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16

Yes

(Alissa Cooper)
(Richard Barnes)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -13) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-10-14 for -15) Unknown
Version -15 addresses my DISCUSS point about the IANA considerations, as well as my other comments.  Thanks for all that.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-09-23 for -13) Unknown
Thanks for the hard work on this protocol. I have some comments, based on a review by Suresh Krishnan, that I think should be addressed before final approval of the document.

First, Section 5.1 should be clear that when used over a reliable transport, not only should the F flag be ignore but that the fragment fields (last four bytes) are not in the packet.

Second, Section 6.2.3 should be clear that the header accompanies all fragments. As a result, the current formula for calculating the number of fragments is probably wrong. This too should be updated.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-10-15 for -15) Unknown
Thanks very much for addressing my discuss and comment, the revisions look great!
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-03-03 for -13) Unknown
thank you especially for Section 6.2 . Unreliable Transport :)
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-11-13 for -15) Unknown
Thanks for working through my Discuss.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-03-05 for -13) Unknown
- section 7: As in other cases, this might be better to refer
to the generic UTA work rather than have it's own list of
preferred ciphersuites.

- I wondered why you'd not just moved all the way to make TLS
mutual-auth mandatory to use for this.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown