Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-09
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Recuse, Yes)
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -08)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-13 for -07)
Unknown
The reviewer offers to buy the document shepherd a new keyboard.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-27 for -08)
Unknown
No objection to the publication of this draft, just curious about a couple of things: 0) People often get the certificate bit wrong, was there any thought to including the test certificates that you used in this document? 1) There's two versions of IKE; did you implement IKEv1 or IKEv2? RFC 5811 points to IKEv1 interestingly enough, which was obsoleted by RFC 4036 (and that was obsoleted by RFC 5996). 2) ESP can be implemented in RFC 4303 without using any of the ESP v3 features and then it looks just like ESP v2. Were any of the v3 features implemented (i.e., which version of ESP was implemented)? 3) I take it from the list that the ESP encryption was not implemented? 4) One of the requirements in RFC 5811 is that cryptographic agility be supported. Did you test this SHOULD: A compliant implementation SHOULD provide operational means for configuring the CE and FE to negotiate other cipher suites and even use manual keying. 5) Did you test any of the SAD and SPD setups? one nit: IPSec and IPsec are both used should just be IPsec.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-30 for -08)
Unknown
abstract: >2 years to write this up? wow. Did something go wrong somewhere? Or, if this is just a case of "we didn't bother becuase the wg were doing other more important work" then saying so would be good.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown