IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB) Architecture
draft-ietf-ipoib-architecture-04
Yes
(Margaret Cullen)
No Objection
(David Kessens)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-05-03)
Unknown
Margaret and Vivek have shown a draft of the 04 revision which makes clear that the IPv6 address use is a format. It no longer mentions "valid IPv6 addresses". It doesn't quite describe the allocation process to the extent of stating that GIDs are not allocated by RIRs from the global IPv6 space, but there is no reason to imagine that they are from this document. I've removed my Discuss based on the pre-submission 04.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-04-02)
Unknown
Section 2.0 talks about "MIBs". The proper terminology is: "MIB Modules". There is one MIB which is composed of multiple MIB Modules.
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-04-01)
Unknown
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART Minor issues found, not blocking, copied to document log. Typos are in filed review.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-04-02)
Unknown
Remove the document references from the Abstract. Should there be a question mark in the title of section 3.3?
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-03-30)
Unknown
References need normative/informative split.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-03-26)
Unknown
It's nice to see a link layer that's designed for IPv6! The paragraph mentioning site-local addresses should probably be modified to note that they've been deprecated for IPv6.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-04-02)
Unknown
abstract doesn't satisfy ID nits references not split