Source Packet Routing in Networking
charter-ietf-spring-02
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
No Objection
(Adam Roach)
(Ben Campbell)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-02 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-02)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-02)
Unknown
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-02)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-02)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-09-26 for -01-02)
Unknown
I'm not clear on the implications of the text about security considerations. If it turns out that people want to use this cross-domain, will integrity protection be specified as a requirement? Will other security properties be specified as required in that scenario? If it turns out that the threat models require enhancements to the security properties of the underlying protocols, will the segment routing specs still be progressed even as those requirements are pitched over to other WGs, or will they not?
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-02)
Unknown
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-09-27 for -01-02)
Unknown
Alissa has some good questions, but I'm confident we can do the right thing. Thanks for the updates to address my previous concerns.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-09-24 for -01-02)
Unknown
This sentence is probably unnecessary as always true for all wgs: "The SPRING WG will manage its specific work items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director."
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-02)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-02)
Unknown