IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability
RFC 7775

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

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Alvaro Retana Yes

Comment (2015-11-18)
No email
send info
A reference to the appendix (maybe in section 2) would be nice -- I almost missed it!

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-19)
No email
send info
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) …”.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-17)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-18)
No email
send info
- 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:-)

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection