• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: armd

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-01-30 00:23 (System)

RFC published

2012-10-23 07:02 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-10-22 23:21 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2012-10-22 15:11 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-10-22 15:11 Cindy Morgan

IESG has approved the document

2012-10-22 15:11 Cindy Morgan

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-10-22 15:11 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-10-22 15:09 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-10-22 15:08 Cindy Morgan

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-10-22 15:08 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-10-22 14:46 Ron Bonica

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2012-10-22 14:07 (System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

2012-10-22 14:07 Thomas Narten

New revision available

2012-10-17 07:19 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]
I am moving my Discuss to a Comment.

The substance is addressing the issues raised during IETF Last Call period by Manav Bhatia resulting from his Routing Directorate Review (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg01731.html).

The concern that led to this being a Discuss was that the issues were raised during IETF last call and should have been addressed at that time.

I understand that the authors are working on a new revision, and since the issues themselves would only have merited being entered as Comments, I am down-grading to a Comment.

2012-10-17 07:19 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-08-30 11:30 Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

2012-08-30 09:53 Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-08-30 07:13 Pete Resnick

[Ballot comment]
The terminology distinction between "application" and "server" is really messy in this document. When you say "application", you are *always* talking about a piece of *server* application software (as distinct from *client* application software). When you say, e.g., "web server", sometimes you're referring to the software (the server application), and sometimes you're referring to the machine (hardware or virtual) on which it runs. For me sitting here in APP land, the use of the word "application" to only mean "server application" is weird, and the use of the word server in two ways makes this document all the more confusing to read. If you all in OPS land understand these sundry uses in this document, I'm not going to pitch a fit. But I would love to see "application" replaced by "server application" or "server software" or something like it, and I'd like to see "server", when used to talk about the machine, to be replaced by "host".

2012-08-30 07:13 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2012-08-30 02:38 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot comment]
There are a couple of emotive terms - massive and "a lot" which should be replaced with a clear definition of the size the authors are considering.

----

and/or OpenFlow [OpenFlow] infused directory assistance approaches.

There should be a reference to IDA approaches

----

Current implementations
today can support ARP processing in the low thousands of ARP packets
per second, which is several orders of magnitude lower than the rate
at which packets can be forwarded by ASICs.

I think that this is a bit misleading, since the ARP rate was never expected
to be close to the data rate. Are the authors stating that in these systems
the rates are similar, if so I think that should be made clearer, in either case
I think the para needs rewording.

----

" Some routers can be configured to broadcast periodic gratuitous ARPs.

Needs a reference to gratuitous ARPs

-----

7.2. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery

It would be useful to highlight in this section that ND is orders
of magnitude more aggressive in cache expiry than IPv4. I
understand 4hrs (for IPv4) vs 35s (for IPv6) and I further
understand that this scaling issue in much smaller systems that those
considered in this text.

====

Nits

"Hypervisor: Software running on a host that allows multiple VMs to run on the same host."

hypervisor surely more likely runs on a server

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.