The Locator/ID Separation Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)
RFC 6835
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Section 1 s/IDS/IDs/ --- Section 2 s/an destination/a destination/ --- Section 3 Verifying registration is called "ligging yourself". Surely this is "groping yourself"? --- Please add a note somewhere to explain to the reader of this document that the DB is public. I.e. be precise on the fact that the DB is the set of publicly available LISP resolvers. --- Section 8 Please add a sentence stating that LIG can be misused hence the importance to protect LISP-MS and support security features.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I support Ron's DISCUSS item about the need for Normative References. The document cannot be read and understood without reading those.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
Responding to Joel Halpern's question about Informational vs. Experimental: I prefer Informational and would not object to Experimental.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
1) The reference to LISP-LIG seems to be self-referential. 2) The reference to draft-ietfr-lisp-alt-06 does not resolve
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Mary Barnes on 10-August-2011. The review can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06586.html.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
s 10.2: r/draft-ietfr-lisp-alt/draft-ietf-lisp-alt
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- I guess the definitions here aren't meant to be authoritative if they conflicted with e.g. another of the WG's documents. It might be no harm to just say that and point at the document that will have the authoritative definitions just in case. (The UDP port number included here is what triggered this, I guess there's an outside chance that might change for some reason as some other document progresses.) - Some ascii-art would be helpful if the authors had the time and energy, but that might be better in some other draft (or maybe exists elsewhere). - PTR is used but not defined. - Is it right to say "EID address"? There're a couple of those. typos: s/an destination/a destination/ s/an a address block/address blocks/ s/usage cases/use cases/ s/each which/each of which/
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection