Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification
draft-ietf-forces-protocol-22
Yes
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Abstain
(David Ward)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-02-11)
Unknown
This now requires the SCTP TML with deals with my discuss - but the SCTP TML is a MUST implement TLS, DTLS, and IPsec. Are you sure the WG really wants all that? I note that this will also end up normatively depending on draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-for-sctp which is still a ways from done. The solution here does resolve my discuss, but I suspect it means this document is going to sit in the RFC Ed. Q for a very long time.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-02-12)
Unknown
I do not opose the approval of this document. I just wonder how this work would have looked like, or even if it would have been chartered as a completely new protocol if NETCONF was available a few years earlier.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
()
Unknown