IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability
draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-11-18)
Unknown
A reference to the appendix (maybe in section 2) would be nice -- I almost missed it!
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-17)
Unknown
A security considerations section that says "None." is pretty much the same as not having the section. I assume that means people thought about it, and reached the conclusion this was security neutral. It might be helpful to at least briefly describe that thought process.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-19)
Unknown
A question about what the reference to transition means was raised in Robert Sparks' Gen-ART review. Robert’s question was good, and Les' answer was spot on. What I’m wondering is whether it would be useful to add something to the document about your answer, Les? Or at the very least, a reference to Appendix A from Section 2. And if you add something about transition mechanisms, it could simply be “… transition mechanisms (such as configuration setting) …”.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-18)
Unknown
- I was surprised that this only updates one RFC. But if that's felt to be sufficient, that's fine. - Appendix A seems to imply that section 5 could claim that this fixes a potential security issue, but it's fine that the authors prefer brevity in section 5 (in this case:-)
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown