IS-IS Flooding Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)
draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-02
Yes
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-06-07)
Unknown
Thanks for including the explicit and clear statement on backwards compatibility. --- A note for the responsible AD: This document creates a registry that needs a designated expert. I suggest you add an item to the Management Items part of the agenda to assign the experts.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
(2014-07-21)
Unknown
Added RFC Editor note to address IANA's concerns.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-06-12)
Unknown
Quoting Melinda, part of her OPS-DIR review: This document introduces new IS-IS flooding scope PDUs, and defines new TLVs and sub-TLVs with 16-bit type and length fields. I feel this document is ready for publication, with a note that RFC 4444 (the IS-IS MIB) should probably be updated at some point in the future. I don't believe an extra note is needed in the draft, in light of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html The only one I could think of is: "The old RFC4444 MIB module doesn't support this new functionality", which is so obvious than it doesn't add any value.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-06-11)
Unknown
Thanks for Discussing with me. I like your proposed text, which is "When deploying support for a new flooding scope correct operation therefore requires both FS PDUs and the new scope be supported by all routers in the flooding domain of the new scope."
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown