Skip to main content

Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
RFC 6053

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-08-10)
This is a fine document. Thank you for completing interoperability testing and for documenting the results!

One nit: several acronyms are not expanded on first use (e.g., "PL" and "XML").
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-08-11)
I support Dan's discuss.  To my reading, two interoperable implementations of the security features are needed
to fully satisfy the requirements for Draft Standard specified in 2026.  The requirements were loosened in 5652
(see section 6.2) but I do not think there would be IETF consensus to support an exception case for *all* the
security features.  

At a minimum, I know one Security AD that would object... :)  

The simplest solution would be to remove the first sentence in section 3.  Creating and demonstrating the
interoperability of two implementations of the security features would more difficult but more rewarding.