Management Guidelines for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-07

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-03-21 for -06)
No email
send info
Ongoing discussion with Luigi and Peter and Brian is on the way to resolve issues identified by my earlier discuss. I expect the authors and the sponsoring ADs to ensure that the right thing happens, and have cleared the formal discuss.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2016-02-17 for -06)
No email
send info
I share Alvaro's thought that this should be experimental. (And if not that, then a BCP).

-4 (and others)
The top level "MUST" follow these policies does not need the MUST. The policies have their own 2119 keywords. As written, it implies things like "MUST follow this SHOULD" which is a bit awkward.

4, policy 2:
I gather the point is not so much that the registrations need to be renewed as it is they need to expire if not renewed. That is, there's no SHOULD level requirement for a registrant to renew it's registration (maybe no longer needs the registration.)

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2016-02-15 for -06)
No email
send info
I can't parse 

       The conditions of registration renewal should no different to the
       conditions of registration.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2016-04-06)
No email
send info
This revision (-07) has addressed the IANA concerns raised. Clearing the DISCUSS.

Alvaro Retana (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-02-15 for -06)
No email
send info
In the request template, the dates should match the ones in draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block: 2018 instead of 2017 and 2021 instead of 2020.