Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification
RFC 5810
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
This now requires the SCTP TML with deals with my discuss - but the SCTP TML is a MUST implement TLS, DTLS, and IPsec. Are you sure the WG really wants all that? I note that this will also end up normatively depending on draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-for-sctp which is still a ways from done. The solution here does resolve my discuss, but I suspect it means this document is going to sit in the RFC Ed. Q for a very long time.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
I do not opose the approval of this document. I just wonder how this work would have looked like, or even if it would have been chartered as a completely new protocol if NETCONF was available a few years earlier.
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) Abstain