Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model
RFC 5812

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

Comment (2008-09-24)
No email
send info
The document does not include the standard phrase about keywords required by RFC 2119. The replacement phrase in the introduction does not mention for example 'MUST NOT' although there are a number of instances of 'MUST NOT' in the text.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2008-10-08)
No email
send info
Section 12.


(The security considerations includes a reference that is inconsistent with the surrounding
text.  The text refers to RFC 3746, which is reference [5] but [2] is the reference that is
included in the text.  )

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-10-09)
No email
send info
I found this document to be at some times very specific (section 9.2 laying IANA considerations for Class Names and IDs) and at other times very abstract. For example when introducing the ID space referred to here in section 3 it is identified as "global within the Network Element and may be issued by IANA." If the ID is global only within the NE, why do they need to be issued by IANA? And, if they do need to be unique outside the NE, why only a "may" here?

The document itself is a nice object-oriented model of how someone might conceptualize a router design. As such, it is well-written and does as good a job as anyone might be asked to do. However, it is the same level of abstraction that helps to make this document possible, which also makes me wonder if we will ever see truly independent and interoperable models, protocols, hardware, FEs, LFBs, etc. for any of this (or enough to matter beyond an academic exercise). I see no reason to hold up this document in particular at this stage, but in general I believe the IESG needs to take a hard look at the work in the WG and question whether it will be able to achieve its goals.

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

(David Ward) Abstain