Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4
RFC 6286
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
It is probably worth mentioning that the 4-octet unsigned integer is in network byte order so that someone doesn't assign it somewhere that doesn't use internal network byte order and gets an unexpected result.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(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
Please consider the editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by David Black on 19-Apr-2011: At the end of Section 3, please remove the word "proposed" from the quoted text below. These changes will no longer be "proposed" when published as an RFC. > > Therefore it is concluded that the revisions proposed in this > document do not introduce any backward compatibility issue with the > current usage of the BGP Identifier. Please consider replacing the Security Considerations (Section 4) with the following two sentences: > > This extension to BGP does not introduce new security > considerations. BGP security considerations are discussed > in [RFC4271].
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection