NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to Routing Locator (RLOC) Database
RFC 6837

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

(Brian Haberman) (was No Objection) Yes

Comment (2012-04-10 for -08)
No email
send info
I agree that this document should be published as a record of one way of doing the LISP mapping.  The following commentary is really meant for the IESG and the ISE...

Given that there does not appear to be any effort to actually implement this specification, does it make sense to publish it as Experimental?  It would seem that Informational would be a fine way to document this approach.  If I follow some of the arguments that Pete and Ron have made recently, I would even support the publication of this document as Historical, but I am not sure if the ISE can do that.

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

Comment (2012-04-11 for -08)
No email
send info
I support Stewart's DISCUSS. The distinction between this document and the other LISP documents, which are also EXPERIMENTAL, is subtle and likely to be lost on the reader.

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-04-20)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my concerns

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Yes) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2012-04-11 for -08)
No email
send info
- I think a paragraph putting this into context (as per Eliot's
mail) would be very valuable for the reader who might otherwise
think this is the "mainstream" experiment.

- Do you really want to refer to ITU-T x.509 rather than rfc5280 for

- I think you could note that key roll-over and key distribution
generally are for future study. 

- You could even mention the potential for using DANE if you wanted
as a different PKI as another possibility for future study.

- CMS is widely deployed (all S/MIME clients include it) but you
could still say pkcs#7 is more widely supported by libraries and

- There doesn't seem to be any way to limit an authority to certain
EIDs and/or RLOCs, such as is done by SIDR. Might be worth noting?

- If you need revocation checks as part of signature validation,
then you probably ought say that that's not included in the analysis
in section 5.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Record