A Dedicated Routing Policy Specification Language Interface Identifier for Operational Testing
RFC 5943
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
section 2: "can advertise" - should this be a MAY or SHOULD? section 3: "maintaner of the attribute" - would this be better stated as "operator fo the target network"?
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
The acronym RPSL should be expanded in the Title.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
FORMER DISCUSS (I still have my doubts about whether a NIC Handle truly provides a reliable link to contact information, but we'll find out in running code). From an operational perspective, the NIC Handle system is no longer supported as widely as it once was; therefore inclusion of the <nic-handle> does not necessarily or even reliably "provide a link to contact information" as claimed in the specification. Is there a reason why the "ping-hdl" attribute does not have a value-type of <email-address> (as for the "notify" attribute in RFCs 2622 and 4012)?
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection