Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-09
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-06)
Unknown
I find it very regrettable that this document was brough forward for IESG review before the architecture and protocol on which it depends. The very first paragraph of the body of the document is a normative reference to the base specification which is currently in AD Review with a new revision required and a good dolop of questions from the AD for the authors to resolve. This means that any review of this document is necessarily moot. I am very sorry, but I may have to come back and extend my Discuss after we have reviewed the base spec. I recognise that this issue is not actionable by the authors, and simply supply it as a comment for the record. However, I strongly encourage the authors to keep a tight track of this document since it contains statements of protocol behavior that are lifted from the base LISP spec and which may be subject to change.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-06)
Unknown
It's hard to imagine that anyone would treat values as other than big endian, but it might be worth being explicit in the document.
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-03-01)
Unknown
I've cleared my Discuss.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-04)
Unknown
The comparison operator on the circular range of version numbers currently is not well defined when comparing against the value that's exactly half-way around the buffer (for example, if N were 3, it is not defined whether 1 is less than or greater than 5 (1<5<5 isn't true, nor is 5>1>1)).
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-20)
Unknown
If there's conflict in normative text between this and base, which takes precedence? I think you need to say, even if you believe there is no such conflict, just in case it turns out that there's some hidden conflict or the base draft changes after this one is done.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Record, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-02-14)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my concerns
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
No Record
No Record
(2011-10-05)
Unknown
I support Ron and Robert's DISCUSSes