Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges
draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-06
Yes
(Stewart Bryant)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-08 for -05)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I have some observations... --- From the Shepherd Write-up... > (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? > > When the WG meeting at IETF74 was asked for consensus on the draft > about 6 people were in favour (the same number as had read the draft). > 5 people (including 3 non-authors) indicated support for the draft on > the mailing list poll and none objected. In March 2009 6 people were in favour of an I-D with 4 authors? And this merits being a working group document on the strength of that? --- I think a number of acronyms need to be exapnded. Compare with http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt --- I find Section 10 hard to believe. Compared with VPLS/H-VPLS scenarios, this document is considering interoperating two network types. Surely in this case, the security of the whole is only as good as the weakest security of any of the component networks. Doesn't that mean that at the very least you need a reference to PBB security mechanisms? Are there no vectors for attacking the IP/MPLS network via the PBB network?
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-10 for -05)
Unknown
What Adrian said.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2013-10-08 for -05)
Unknown
Further to Adrian's point: 1. The document shepherd tells us that two or three people besides the authors have indicated support for this, and perhaps only two have actually read it. 2. An IPR statement was filed in 2008 on the individual-submission version of the document. Two of the authors are inventors on the two patents mentioned in the statement. The working group adopted the document in early 2010. And, according to the shepherd writeup, the working group was first informed of the IPR statement in July 2013 (presumably as part of WGLC)? I don't see how we can really say there's working group consensus on this document. <cynical-mode> And it really looks to me like it's authors getting their patents into working group technology on the basis that no one cares enough to object. </cynical-mode> (I realise that my cynical-mode statement may be unfair to well-meaning authors, and that I have no real basis for it. Please take it with many grains of salt.) I'm not going to block this document on these points, but I can't in good conscience support it either. Hence, my ABSTAIN position.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2013-10-09 for -05)
Unknown
Given my read of the document and the author's response to points raised in Barry's ballot, this appears to be a case of publishing for publishing's sake. I can't support the publication of this document, unless it was being published as Historic.