Logical-Interface Support for IP Hosts with Multi-Access Support
draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-03-03 for -13)
Unknown
As mentioned by Jürgen Schönwälder in this OPS-DIR: The 'grandfather' model for interfaces in the OPS world is RFC 2863 and RFC 7223 builds on that. I think your definitions are reasonably compatible (except that the other models do not restrict a logical interface to an IP interface). Perhaps it makes sense to discuss this related work or at least provide pointers, e.g., add a paragraph at the end of section 2 explaining how the terminology introduced here relates to RFC 2863 and RFC 7223? I also believe it would be a nice addition to the draft.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-03-02 for -13)
Unknown
Juergen schoenwaelder performed the opsdir review againt version 12
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-03-02 for -13)
Unknown
I would have thought that noting that different layer 2 interfaces can have different security properties would be worth noting, even if we might not want to recommend that logical interfaces only group physical interfaces with similar security properties (which may be an interesting idea, but I can see it is also likely impractical today). I note that the secdir review [1] raises the same issue but I don't think there was a response to that. (If there was, apologies, I didn't find it;-) [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06352.html
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown