Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
(Chris Newman) (was No Objection) Yes
Comment (2009-02-19 for -)
The additional comments in -07 have improved this document to the level where I feel comfortable voting yes on this proposal.
(Tim Polk) Yes
(Ross Callon) No Objection
Comment (2009-03-05 for -)
To me it appears that existing L3VPN technology, while widely deployed and therefore also widely implemented, is really not a great fit for the problem that this document is trying to solve. To a large extent L3VPNs rely on the service providers to correctly configure which sites go into which VPNs. This is great for L3VPNs (relieving private networks of significant effort), but seems wrong for what this document is doing. This is part of my motivation for entering a "no objection" vote.
(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) Abstain
(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss) Abstain
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) Abstain
(Dan Romascanu) No Record
Comment (2009-01-29 for -)
I support the issues raised in the DISCUSSes of ROn and Lars.