DNS Resource Records for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)
RFC 6742

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

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-24 for -03)
No email
send info
I agree with the Discuss and Comments entered by Adrian

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-23 for -03)
No email
send info
The LISP documents (currently in the RFC Editor Queue for publication
as Experimental RFCs in the IETF Stream) have clear and unambiguous
text to caution the user about the unknown side-effects of conducting
the experiment on the Internet. For example, draft-ietf-lisp-23 says:

   This experimental specification has areas that require additional
   experience and measurement.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment
   beyond experimental situations.  Results of experimentation may lead
   to modifications and enhancements of protocol mechanisms defined in
   this document.  See Section 15 for specific, known issues that are in            
   need of further work during development, implementation, and

   An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic,
   applications, routers, and security is for future study.  This
   analysis will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing and
   will also look at scalability and levels of state required for
   encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on.

It seems to me highly desirable that similar caveats be applied to this
work and added to the front of all ILNP documents. I strongly urge the
authors and IRSG to apply such text.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection