Skip to main content

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
RFC 6834

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)

No Record


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-06)
I find it very regrettable that this document was brough forward for
IESG review before the architecture and protocol on which it depends.

The very first paragraph of the body of the document is a normative 
reference to the base specification which is currently in AD Review 
with a new revision required and a good dolop of questions from the 
AD for the authors to resolve.

This means that any review of this document is necessarily moot. I am
very sorry, but I may have to come back and extend my Discuss after
we have reviewed the base spec.

I recognise that this issue is not actionable by the authors, and simply
supply it as a comment for the record. However, I strongly encourage the
authors to keep a tight track of this document since it contains 
statements of protocol behavior that are lifted from the base LISP spec 
and which may be subject to change.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-06)
It's hard to imagine that anyone would treat values as other than big endian, but it might be worth being explicit in the document.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-01)
I've cleared my Discuss.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-04)
The comparison operator on the circular range of version numbers currently is not well defined when comparing against the value that's exactly half-way around the buffer (for example, if N were 3, it is not defined whether 1 is less than or greater than 5 (1<5<5 isn't true, nor is 5>1>1)).

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-09-20)
If there's conflict in normative text between this and base,
which takes precedence? I think you need to say, even if
you believe there is no such conflict, just in case it turns out
that there's some hidden conflict or the base draft changes
after this one is done.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Record, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2012-02-14)
Thank you for addressing my concerns

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) (was No Objection) No Record

No Record (2011-10-05)
I support Ron and Robert's DISCUSSes