Skip to main content

Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-14

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-05-11) Unknown
It is probably worth mentioning that the 4-octet unsigned integer is in network byte order so that someone doesn't assign it somewhere that doesn't use internal network byte order and gets an unexpected result.
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2011-05-06) Unknown
Please consider the editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by
  David Black on 19-Apr-2011:

  At the end of Section 3, please remove the word "proposed" from the
  quoted text below.  These changes will no longer be "proposed" when
  published as an RFC.
  >
  > Therefore it is concluded that the revisions proposed in this
  > document do not introduce any backward compatibility issue with the
  > current usage of the BGP Identifier.

  Please consider replacing the Security Considerations (Section 4) with
  the following two sentences:
  >
  > This extension to BGP does not introduce new security
  > considerations. BGP security considerations are discussed
  > in [RFC4271].
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown