Definitions of Managed Objects for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 (VRRPv3)
draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

Is it normal for 2119 language to appear in the MIB description sections? Seems like an odd thing to put in there, given that it occurs nowhere else in the document.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

I would like to see an expansion of the text in section 7 to answer Robert's comment.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

Section 7 (Interpretation of RFC5798) as written does not provide enough information to let readers who were not involved in the conversation know what the disagreement actually was - they can only guess. As written, it's hard to know whether or not this is updating/profiling RFC5798. 

Is it the case that this assumption was chosen because it is the "safest" (in the sense of providing a useful MIB in as many circumstances as possible)? If so, characterizing the choice that way would be clearer. Either way, could the document capture why this work won't have to be revisited if the disagreement is ultimately resolved with a different interpretation?

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

I support Dan's #2 discuss.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

I agree with Dan's discuss point #2

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection