Definitions of Managed Objects for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 (VRRPv3)
RFC 6527

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-05)
No email
send info
I would like to see an expansion of the text in section 7 to answer Robert's comment.

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-04)
No email
send info
I agree with Dan's discuss point #2

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-05)
No email
send info
Is it normal for 2119 language to appear in the MIB description sections? Seems like an odd thing to put in there, given that it occurs nowhere else in the document.

(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-03)
No email
send info
Section 7 (Interpretation of RFC5798) as written does not provide enough information to let readers who were not involved in the conversation know what the disagreement actually was - they can only guess. As written, it's hard to know whether or not this is updating/profiling RFC5798. 

Is it the case that this assumption was chosen because it is the "safest" (in the sense of providing a useful MIB in as many circumstances as possible)? If so, characterizing the choice that way would be clearer. Either way, could the document capture why this work won't have to be revisited if the disagreement is ultimately resolved with a different interpretation?

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-04)
No email
send info
I support Dan's #2 discuss.