Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
draft-ietf-mpls-in-ip-or-gre-08
Yes
(Alex Zinin)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Russ Housley)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Thomas Narten)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-02-19)
Unknown
I gave my assent to the author on wording to clear my Discuss on this 6 weeks ago. It would have been helpful to be given back my email when asked to re-check the i-d, rather than having me find it.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-12-18)
Unknown
Comments from Bert: - I do not understand why RFC791 is normative while RFC2460 is Informative Comments/Nits from OPS directorate (by Pekka). We know that some are REAL NITs. just to record them in case a new rev is done anyway. Network Working Group Tom Worster Internet Draft Expiration Date: March 2004 Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. Eric C. Rosen, editor Cisco Systems, Inc. ==> s/Tom/T./, s/Yakov/Y./, s/Eric C./E./ 7. IANA Considerations The MPLS-in-IP encapsulation requires that IANA allocate two IP Protocol Numbers, as described in section 3. No future IANA actions will be required. The MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation does not require any IANA action. ==> the last sentence should be removed, as it conflicts with the rest of the section. [RFC2460]"Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification," S. ==> s/]"/] "/ 9. Intellectual Property Notice 10. Copyright Notice ==> I'd recommend moving these after Authors Information section (14.) 14. Author Information ==> s/Author Information/Authors' Addresses/
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-05-26)
Unknown
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-12-17)
Unknown
I share Thomas' concerns, but did not choose to enter a separate discuss.
Ned Freed Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-12-12)
Unknown
Copyright section has (date) rather than actual date
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2003-12-16)
Unknown
As a general comment, I agree with all of Thomas's operational concerns, and I think there are probably more waiting in the weeds. This seems to create a very generalized pair of mechanisms that can probably actually only be used successfully in very tightly pre-configured situations. Melinda Shore has several times raised a flag that we're turning our end-to-end network into an all tunnel network. When we start tunnelling tunnelling protocols and protecting their security with tunnels, we're in trouble.