NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to Routing Locator (RLOC) Database
draft-lear-lisp-nerd-09
Yes
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
No Record
(Adrian Farrel)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
Yes
Yes
(2012-04-10 for -08)
Unknown
I agree that this document should be published as a record of one way of doing the LISP mapping. The following commentary is really meant for the IESG and the ISE... Given that there does not appear to be any effort to actually implement this specification, does it make sense to publish it as Experimental? It would seem that Informational would be a fine way to document this approach. If I follow some of the arguments that Pete and Ron have made recently, I would even support the publication of this document as Historical, but I am not sure if the ISE can do that.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Yes)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-04-11 for -08)
Unknown
I support Stewart's DISCUSS. The distinction between this document and the other LISP documents, which are also EXPERIMENTAL, is subtle and likely to be lost on the reader.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-04-11 for -08)
Unknown
- I think a paragraph putting this into context (as per Eliot's mail) would be very valuable for the reader who might otherwise think this is the "mainstream" experiment. - Do you really want to refer to ITU-T x.509 rather than rfc5280 for certificates? - I think you could note that key roll-over and key distribution generally are for future study. - You could even mention the potential for using DANE if you wanted as a different PKI as another possibility for future study. - CMS is widely deployed (all S/MIME clients include it) but you could still say pkcs#7 is more widely supported by libraries and tools. - There doesn't seem to be any way to limit an authority to certain EIDs and/or RLOCs, such as is done by SIDR. Might be worth noting? - If you need revocation checks as part of signature validation, then you probably ought say that that's not included in the analysis in section 5.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-04-20)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my concerns
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Record
No Record
(2012-04-03 for -08)
Unknown