Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry
RFC 7214
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point: Updates: RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing Given that these texts are in the RFC Editor's queue, albeit about to be released by a blocking reference, it would be clearer to the reader if we were to modify the IANA section directly using an RFC Editor's note and remove the update that this RFC proposes. Given that the shepherd and the AD are the same for all three drafts this should be straightforward to address. In addressing this the note about changing the references should also be addressed.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
As noted by Scott in his OPS-DIR review: I do note that the ID does not actually say why a reorganization id a good thing to do. It might be good to add a sentence or two to explain the advantages of this work.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection