Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
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
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-08-10)
Unknown
This is a fine document. Thank you for completing interoperability testing and for documenting the results! One nit: several acronyms are not expanded on first use (e.g., "PL" and "XML").
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-08-11)
Unknown
I support Dan's discuss. To my reading, two interoperable implementations of the security features are needed to fully satisfy the requirements for Draft Standard specified in 2026. The requirements were loosened in 5652 (see section 6.2) but I do not think there would be IETF consensus to support an exception case for *all* the security features. At a minimum, I know one Security AD that would object... :) The simplest solution would be to remove the first sentence in section 3. Creating and demonstrating the interoperability of two implementations of the security features would more difficult but more rewarding.