Skip to main content

Hiding Transit-Only Networks in OSPF
RFC 6860

Yes

(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05)

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2012-12-04 for -06)
Thanks for addressing the majority of my Discuss points and Comments.

One issue remains that I have moved from the Discuss to this Comment:
I really think that the use of RFC 2119 language in 2.1.2 and subsequent
is inappropriate. In my opinion you are just describing what an 
implementation does if it wants to achieve a particular effect. You are
not describing mandatory to implement interoperability behaviors.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-08-28 for -05)
I read this draft a couple of times trying to figure out what you were hiding.  Then, I read Adrian's mutterings - I'm with him.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-08-27 for -05)
- abstract: I'd say s/minimize/reduce/ would be better in the last
sentence. (Same for intro.) The point is that you can't know any
reasonable "minimum" here, but you can I guess reduce the liklihood
of some attacks. 

- I agree with Adrian's mutterings about the term "hiding."

- Section 7 seems very brief to me but then I don't know much about
routing. I also wondered that this section has no uppercase 2119
words - is the "recommended" there intended to be the same as
RECOMMENDED aka SHOULD? If so, and 5837 (An ICMP 
extension?) is all that's needed, then I think it'd be clearer to 
use SHOULD. If not, then couldn't you RECOMMEND some 
good way to manage these no-longer-routable devices?

- Section 8: very much a quibble but I think "unauthorized access"
isn't quite right, fewer routers will be exposed-to/ available-for
any access, not just unauthorized access. I'd say better might be
to just put the full-stop after "exposed."

- Section 10, paragraph 2: sigh - the ack for the idea is fine, I'm
just non-actionably lamenting the USPTO's idea of invention;-(
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)