Cisco Systems' Private VLANs: Scalable Security in a Multi-Client Environment
draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10
Discuss
Yes
(Mark Townsley)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Russ Housley)
Abstain
(David Ward)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2008-07-16)
Unknown
will update when see what we are doing ...
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-07-17)
Unknown
I support Lars's Discuss. In addition, in my quick review I came to the conclusion that its hard to classify this as anything else than RFC 3932 response 1. No protocol is extended, this is merely a way to use bridges and set up subnets. Having said that, I have real concerns about the document. For instance, the document does not contain the words "multicast" or "IPv6" and explain what its arrangement does for those. The document does not explain what, if anything, breaks when you do this. I suspect something does. Also, I would be very interested in understanding the role of this document vs. deployment models in DSL. If this is something that DSL Forum would be relying on, for instance, we should rather review this in the IETF so that some of the above issues could be checked. Or is this purely a vendor spec?
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
()
Unknown