RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete
RFC 6248
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes
This Informational document is Obsoleting a BCP (4148 is also BCP 108). Given 4148's content, I agree with the choice of this document's intended status.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
1. It would be useful to introduce a terminology section that would explain terms like 'zombie' and 'apocalypse' used in the Security Considerations section. 2. In the IANA Considerations section: > The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents will be maintained as-is on the day that RFC XXXX was published. As this is text to be appended to the Description of the registry on the IANA Web site, it would be useful I think to specify explicitly the date of publication of the RFC - which is also the date of definitive freeze of the registry.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
While the security considerations made me laugh out loud (thanks for that), I think it should probably be amended to strike the parenthetical.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
Please add a reference to Zombie_apocalypse, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
I would like to see the security considerations expanded to explain the environments where the risk of a zombie apocalypse is considered most likely, and any suggested mitigations.