Deprecation of BGP Path Attributes: DPA, ADVERTISER, and RCID_PATH / CLUSTER_ID
RFC 6938
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
I am very supportive of this action, but completely confused by process. AFAICS, the registry is "Standards Action process or the Early IANA Allocation process". From where I stand, that means that action to change the registry must be in a Standards Track RFC or (for new allocations) in an I-D that is intended for Standards Track publication. This would be a minor pain in this case since the I-D was last called as Informational. However, we have lived a number of years with these stray values in the registry, so I doubt a couple more weeks will kill anyone. I'll leave it to the responsible AD to work out what needs to be done.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
No action required here, other than, perhaps, further generic discussion within the IESG: We should absolutely do this. I would have preferred to do it by last-calling the action and then handling it as a management item by the IESG. The significant expense of publishing an RFC for it seems excessive.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection