Graceful BGP Session Shutdown
draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana (was Discuss) Yes

Warren Kumari Yes

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes

Yes (2017-12-13 for -12)
No email
send info
I'm balloting "yes" because I think it's important to publish this. But, like Alvaro,  I wonder why this is not standards track, BCP, or just about anything but informational. So I support his DISCUSS, including his the comments on how to resolve it.

-1, last paragraph: This references RFC 8174, but does not use the actual 8174 boilerplate. Is there a reason not to do so?

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-12-14 for -12)
No email
send info
I also believe this should be standards track. Or is there any good reason why it should not be standards track similar as other docs that define well known communities?

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -12)
No email
send info