Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-08-10)
No email
send info
This is a fine document. Thank you for completing interoperability testing and for documenting the results!

One nit: several acronyms are not expanded on first use (e.g., "PL" and "XML").

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-08-11)
No email
send info
I support Dan's discuss.  To my reading, two interoperable implementations of the security features are needed
to fully satisfy the requirements for Draft Standard specified in 2026.  The requirements were loosened in 5652
(see section 6.2) but I do not think there would be IETF consensus to support an exception case for *all* the
security features.  

At a minimum, I know one Security AD that would object... :)  

The simplest solution would be to remove the first sentence in section 3.  Creating and demonstrating the
interoperability of two implementations of the security features would more difficult but more rewarding.