Ballot for conflict-review-savage-eigrp
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
I don't object, but two points.... - The title doesn't mention Cisco. The 1st sentence of the intro does. I always find including such information in the title useful - I think it means far fewer readers might end up confused about the status of the eventual RFC. I would hope (and encourage) the ISE to have that included in the title whenever possible as that is one of the ways in which we can get value from the Independent stream (I mean documenting proprietary protocols that might one day be input to the IETF stream). - Without having read the rest of the document (sorry, but it is loooooong), I really didn't find the security considerations convincing at all. I wish I had a better understanding of the kind of review the ISE calls for for such drafts. Generalising, ISE stream security considerations text seems to arrive at 5742 review at an almost random point on a continuum from really not good to great.