Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.
(Ross Callon) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2009-02-11 for -)
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.
(Chris Newman) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
Comment (2009-02-12 for -)
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.